User talk:Gillyweed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Homebirth safety absurdity[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

This box: view  talk  edit

Canberra Meetup #5[edit]

RecentChangesCamp
You are invited to the next Canberra wiki meetup: Recent Changes Camp Canberra 11th August 2010, 10am University of Canberra, Building 7, Room 7XC37 on 11 August 2010.
REGO | SCHEDULE
Hope we'll see you and friends there, but please register so we can prepare lunch.

--.../Nemo (talkContributions) 13:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Lynch and Somme Mud[edit]

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[edit]

are u intending to add anymore content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisfromcanberra (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 21:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

EnePaul225 Mods to enema.....[edit]

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)
The user has not paid attention to the WP policies regarding writing articles and simply reverts his changes. He has previously been asked to reference his changes and has not done so. His personal experiences do not make an encyclopaedic article. Gillyweed (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward[edit]

Right now, the Safety section is the most serious block to getting to where GA/FA status can even be considered. I think the studies are only fueling various PoV insertions/reversions. Perhaps if the emphasis is moved away from the studies themselves, the article can reasonably point out that safety, like anything else, varies from pregnancy to pregnancy. And, instead of quoting passages from the studies, merely cite them as sources. I know it can be difficult, but language or quotations which even hints at promoting a particular PoV become extremely problematical. Those do need to be left behind - and it takes a good deal of self-awareness to do that. I'm guilty of allowing my own preferences to creep in from time to time, and sometime it isn't even mine, but subtle PoV picked up from sources I've come across. I can tell you that it is much easier to spot in someone else's work than in our own. You cannot please everyone, but restricting to a description without promoting any PoV really should lessen complaints and reversions. I really don't like intervening when I see editors I know have the capacity to pick up spotting PoV on their own. Astynax (talk) 06:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Continued efforts[edit]

Hi again - just a note to say that I appreciate the substantive contributions you've added to homebirth. I know it will continue to be contentious, but I appreciate having text that we all can edit rather than shuffling the same words around and around with reverts, etc. As for the anon editor, I think we have grounds to escalate our complaint to WP:ANI or something similar as he/she refuses to pay any attention to etiquette. And nothing personal intended on the discussion page, thank you for understanding. Lcwilsie (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has been noted - check it out: User_talk:202.89.167.125 Lcwilsie (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that should be helpful. Gillyweed (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
One would think. Alas. Should I approach arbitration or administration? This editor seems to think he/she has the right to lock editing on the article. Lcwilsie (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How funny - I just wrote a paragraph about women's choice for homebirth and was going to add it when I saw you'd already added a nicely referenced list. Thanks. Lcwilsie (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Omaha Beach - Naval Gunfire[edit]

Go to the source I gave as reference.

Also you will note that the source put the info in UPPERCASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talkcontribs) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I did go to the source and it didn't say what is claimed. See Talk. Gillyweed (talk) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

ANSWER:

go to: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Normandy/Cominch/

Then go to link: Chapter II - NAVAL GUNFIRE

Then go to: Preparation Fires, Not Sufficient Page 2-27

THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF NAVAL GUNFIRE TO BE DELIVERED IN A GIVEN SITUATION CANNOT BE ARRIVED AT MATHEMATICALLY, AND THOUGH NAVAL GUNFIRE ALONE WILL NOT NECESSARILY INSURE A SUCCESSFUL LANDING WITH MINIMUM CASUALTIES, THE FOREGOING ROUGH COMPARATIVE FIGURES WILL SERVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONCLUSION THAT AT OMAHA BEACHES DURING THE PRE-LANDING PHASE, NOT ENOUGH NAVAL GUNFIRE WAS PROVIDED.

BTW - I expect an apology!!!


-- 2-27 -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talkcontribs) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Please read the discussion on the article's talk page. That's the place to have the debate. Please also be aware of WP:OR and WP:3R. Thanks Gillyweed (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the justification of undoing my revisions to the Naval Support section of the Omaha Beach article?

I documented my source (military experts on naval warfare) <ref>http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/rep/Normandy/Cominch/Neptune2.html</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talkcontribs) 11:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the article talk page. Please sign your posts. Gillyweed (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christopher Sweeney[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Christopher Sweeney. 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Sweeney. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group[edit]

Hi there. Any chance you might cast your eye over this article and make some comments or corrections? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Sweeney[edit]

I saw the AfD discussion on this one. Wile you and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz make some useful points, the question isn't whether the person may be notable, nor whether any references are available online, but whether references are cited in the WP entry. At the moment they aren't. I suggest finding something that cites Sweeney (an offline source is fine) and cite it in the article - that should be enough, along with his books, to ensure the article stays. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Valerie McKenzie[edit]

Hello! Valerie McKenzie, an article you created 2.5 years ago, has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is here. I was looking it over, and though I am not familiar with her, I get the sense she probably is notable. The nomination seems to stem from the lack of easily-found sources for citation, as her work is dated in Internet time (70s-80s). I am having trouble finding references to help rescue the article; perhaps you might see if you have anything to add. Cheers. --Milowent (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I thought AfD automatically included the creators of articles! Anyway, I have subsequently tried to find more material about her and without popping down to the National Library (which I don't have have time to do) I have found nothing more substantive that what I wrote in the first place. Thanks for caring. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Valerie McKenzie[edit]

Oi! : )

I had just written a comment agreeing with your comment about my comment and then you went and deleted it from the AfD. I can take some robust criticism. This is what I wrote: "::: Comment - fair summary, although perhaps it would better to say that "I don't have the time to go and find reliable sources for an author who wrote 20 years ago." This takes extensive time and effort which to my mind is not worth it. I suppose I see that this person has written some 15 books about an area of early Australian history and thus is notable and over time more interested people than me will improve the article. I know this doesn't fit with how we do things around here but it seems more valuable to us to have this entry than to delete it. I am delighted that Google is providing you the sources you require. I find as someone who writes about early Australian history that it is rather poor in this area. When it has stuff it's very exciting but more often than not I am left seeking more information. Google is great but it ain't God...yet!

Please don't hang your head in shame. Tis good to have some people trying to keep the quality of WP high. I appreciate the work you are doing. Cheers, Gillyweed (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Gillyweed, thanks for your comments. The interesting part about this particular article is that I did try and find sources or even a review, and just could not come up with anything. Regarding my remarks, though not uncivil where on the biting edge and that is why I struck. Any editor that takes the time to express an opinion, even if it is different from mine :-), deserves the right to express that opinion without satire. ShoesssS Talk 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Collector NSW[edit]

Will you please stop editing this page unless you have something constructive to add. Simply reversing other people's work is not constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.224.94 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverse vandalism. Placing uncited material in a document that is libellous is vandalism Gillyweed (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Collector NSW[edit]

The information regarding the closure of Lynwood Cafe has been verified with the owner, whom I know personally, please dont change it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.224.94 (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not verifiable information. I am sure the owner didn't close it because of people's complaints and if she did then I doubt she would tell you. Please provide a proper citation for your claim. Gillyweed (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Shipwreck changes[edit]

Hi Gillyweed,

I would add references if I knew how to do that. Perhaps I can give you the info and you decide what to do. Cheers Steve PS. At one time I did have a login, but, the ISP I use was banned because of what someone else was doing.

Hi Steve, create a new login! The other thing is copy the reference layout already in the articles. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Gave it a go. Still think it odd that the ship was sunk before it was built! How do you change Mersey (1805 ship)?

If you are lucky I may yet have a new ship entry for you to make. The problem being it has no name. That is, no one alive knows the name. Cheers Steve

Good work Steve, I have moved the Mersey article to Mersey (1801 Ship). Tell me more about your new ship! Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice on this wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C3%A7ois_de_Galaup,_comte_de_La_P%C3%A9rouse a ship built by the survivors of the expedition. I came across some long forgotten information that might indicate the area where this ship was wrecked perhaps even the exact spot. I have passed the info on to the French searchers. You will hear about it if it works out. How about calling it the Astrolabe II as it was built from the wreckage of the Astrolabe.

Thank you for creating the Don Pardee Moon article[edit]

I was very happy to find the article about my great grandfather Don Pardee Moon. While I knew he had served in the navy and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery, I didn't know the full details of his service until looking at the page you created. I am glad you have given him a place here in wikipedia and wanted to thank you. Chess coterie (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation - Electrolyzed Reduced Water - Journal Citations Deleted[edit]

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Electrolyzed Reduced Water has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Electrolyzed Reduced Water and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, RealScienceEditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. I followed the link but there was no information about the dispute or the request for mediation. Have you finished filling it all in? Gillyweed (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. Details are posted on my talk page. This is my first mediation request so I'm grateful for any tips you may have to help the process along. Thank you for your help. RealScienceEditor (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Gillyweed! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,422 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. James O'Connor (academic) - Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
  2. Gun Buster - Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled[edit]

Hi Gillyweed,

I'm a bit perplexed about this edit, for which you didn't give an edit summary, so I can't understand your reasoning. Did you mean to reinstate an image over which there were serious undue weight concerns? Jakew (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Morning Jakew, sorry for the lack of edit summary, but I have to admit I only quickly glanced at the changes. It seemed to me like an anon had simply deleted what on first glance looked an okay table. It looked like vandalism. I've subsequently gone and looked at the talk page for a discussion of the graph and can't find it. Can you please point me to the debate about this graph giving undue weight (to something?). Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Irritation unlimited ...[edit]

Grrrr! Well, at least I now know I'm not the only one who finds this sort of thing "annoying" ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Good Work[edit]

Keep up the good work champ!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.35.229.129 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

RE:Thanks![edit]

You are most welcome, enjoy editing :-) MaenK.A.Talk 17:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gillyweed for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Simpleterms (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly! Gillyweed (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually having tracked down your claims, it is clear that you don't understand that multiple people watch articles. Of course I am going to revert unsubstantiated changes from someone who refuses to engage on the talk pages despite being asked numerous times. I think your sockpuppet case is designed to waste people's time. I have no intention of defending myself as there is nothing to defend. I will continue to revert your changes to the David Tweed article if you continue to make changes without any justification. One suspects that maybe you have a WP:COI with that article? Gillyweed (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It must just be a coincidence that you take over editing when Tbsdy lives stops. Obviously my error. Simpleterms (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a coincidence. If I hadn't made the revisions, I'm sure s/he would have. Perhaps you should spend a little more time editing at WP (other than simply one article) before throwing around accusations. Gillyweed (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for helping with the referencing and cleaning up of links that need subscription in Musa Javed Chohan --عثمان وقاص چوہان 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uchohan (talkcontribs)

Echinacea[edit]

Well it works for me - I know the sample size is not sufficient etc. and it was not intended to be a scientific report - just a little info for interest - sorry to have offended you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelwild (talkcontribs) 17:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Not offended! Simply pointing out WP policies. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Simpson again[edit]

There has been some vandalism again on the Simpson page. Someone has tried to correct the obvious stuff but they have missed a big deletion of most of the article. Not sure how to undo multiple versions. --Mat Hardy (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've fixed it - I hope! Gillyweed (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ben Gascoigne[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for the recent barnstar re Bronwyn Bancroft. The above article (about an Australian astronomer) is at a feature article candidate at present: if you would consider perusing it and contributing to the review here, that would be great. I know it's not your area, but in fact some 'outside eyes' would be helpful. Any time you can give is appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Larry Kusche Article[edit]

Greetings,

I see that you undid my revisions to this article. I would urge that you investigate Kusche's version of the disappearance of the USS Cyclops, which I summarized in the talk section of the Kusche article.

Thanks, Rodneysmall (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I did read the talk section. Thank you for putting your argument there. I still have concerns with the references provided and the extensive argument put when the article is about the man and not an article for arguing about his theories. See WP:Undue. Cheers Gillyweed (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What problem do you have with the references?Rodneysmall (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Changes Camp Canberra Aug 11, 2010[edit]

Rcc2010-icon.svg

I saw your edits on the University of Canberra WP entry, and thought, by chance, you might like to come to this:

RecentChangesCamp, Canberra is being held at the University of Canberra, Building 7, Room 7XC37 on 11 August 2010.
ABOUT | REGISTRATION | SCHEDULE

Hope we'll see you and friends there. Leighblackall (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverts on Extrasensory Perception article[edit]

Please see talk page. --92.100.103.125 (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Lyneham Primary School for deletion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Lyneham Primary School, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyneham Primary School until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Shirt58 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Hart[edit]

I don't know if you're aware, but Kevin Hart (poet) is technically under 1RR right now. See Talk:Kevin Hart (poet)#Attention, all editors. Now, one problem with that is that the Admin set to watch over it, User:NuclearWarfare, has recently set aside his admin tools. Nonetheless, I think we need to abide by the 1RR and seek outside help. I recommend you self-revert to avoid any concerns. I was intending to revert myself, but I was waiting for the current editor to finish his/her incremental changes and revert everything back to your/my last version. I'm also going to raise the issue on WP:BLPN to see if I can get more eyes from there. This page may well need full protection, but I'm too involved to tell myself how, and what version to protect, or, for that matter, how we're going to proceed if one side won't engage in discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

First time I have come across 1RR. I will of course comply with it, but I note that one of the new eds has already reverted my change so I guess a self-revert is now moot. It would be good to have some help. Many of these edits really do seem to suffer from COI! Is it worth looking into sockpuppetry? Gillyweed (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Hart[edit]

Hi,

I am trying to make some edits to Kevin Hart's entry. I'm mostly moving information around to make the sections clearer, and I'm deleting some quotes by less-than-reputable sources (Reviewer Pam Brown, for instance). I haven't yet had time to defend all my edits, but I'd be happy to do so. Do you know how I might get the page to revert to the version I edited earlier today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phainein (talkcontribs) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's good to finally see one of you engaging in conversation, thanks! I recommend going to the article's talk page and discussing there. The problem with your edits is that you (your group?) are making them without discussion. Many of them appear to be simply by preference. In the example you raise above, you're going to need to explain, on the talk page, why Pam Brown isn't an acceptable source but the other ones are. She appears to meet the guidelines Wikipedia sets out for reliable sources, so this needs to be a collaborative discussion. Let's talk! Qwyrxian (talk) 02:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hart's nationality[edit]

Gillyweed: Hart is a US person, he used to be an Australian citizen. Ask him yourself if you are unsure. Luxetveritas7 (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Let's discuss this on the article's talk page--then we can come to a consensus decision. Describing a person's nationality can be tricky, as it can be a complex relationship between citizenship, source of notability, residence, etc. A more important question, though, is your statement that we should "Ask him [our]sel[ves]." Do you know Hart personally? If so, do you work with him in some capacity? I'm not asking you to reveal your identity, but Wikipedia does ask that people closely associated with an article's subject take a look at our conflict of interest policy, and work extra hard to be neutral. I would argue that you have not been editing the article neutrally, but we can certainly discuss that in detail at the article's talk page. We do, however, need you to mention whether or not you have a connection with Hart. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Chemtrail[edit]

I see you have reverted vandalism on the Chemtrail page. This has since been reverted by another IP editor apparently pushing the conspiracy theory. This editor has recently added to and changed the article, maybe you could help review these edits with me and look whether they are appropriate. 92.76.145.217 (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

David Tweed[edit]

I'm rather afraid that this article doesn't say anything of the sort. It merely says that David Tweed took on the name when he worked in a stockbroking firm. If you feel it does, then I suggest you quote verbatim from the article where it DOES say what you claim. I can assure you that the does NOT say what you think it does.

Incidentally, your revert took out a table formatting change. Please try not to do this. Thanks. - 114.76.239.105 (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Invite[edit]

You may be interested to come to the Wikipedia celebration on 15 January see http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

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 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Diaper cakes pictures samples[edit]

Hi. I have noticed that you removed link to samples of diaper cakes. I'm not sure why, I read the guide what and how to do it, and if I missed something or misunderstood - I'm sorry. In the talk page under "Baby shower" you guys talked how popular term this is. Well, living in USA for 11 years now, I'm surprised that so many people have no idea about this long and old tradition. On the top of it, one of the most popular and at the same time not widely known gift for baby shower is Diaper Cake. There is no article about diaper cake on Wikipedia. It's a product like any other on the market. There is many companies creating just that. I'm semi-professional photographer and some of my clients are diaper cake companies. Please consider creating "diaper cake" article. I can provide some "neutral view of point" description and one or two not copyrighted /free to use and share/ pictures. Googling "diaper cake" shows how popular this term/product really is.About 600.000 results were provided. Please let me know if I can help with anything. Feel free to write me an email at magazyn@comcast.net Thank you and have a blessed day. Lucas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.66.64 (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I removed the link to diaper cakes as it appeared to be spam. Please have a look at WP:SPAM. I am sure that if you can meet the requirements of WP:notability then you can create the article about diaper cakes yourself. Best wishes, Gillyweed (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.66.64 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Barber[edit]

Hi there, almost 4 years ago you created the article on Jack Barber, with the edit summary of New stub - please contribute more material. Well in those 4 years, no actual content has been added, and today it was marked as an unreferenced biography of a living person, which you probably know are frowned upon these days. Do you think he really meets the WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability guidelines? Do you know of any reviews of his book, or his life? Has he or the book won any awards? If we can't find sufficient evidence to verify his notability, I think I'll have to nominate the article for deletion. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

G'day. I think he has had it! I can't find additional information about him. Time for a PROD. How sad. Gillyweed (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jack Barber[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jack Barber has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable author who does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:AUTHOR nor WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The-Pope (talk) 11:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Every Move a Picture[edit]

I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Every Move a Picture, as the article was at AfD in October 2007 and per policy it is permanently ineligible for deletion via prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; do not interpret it as my endorsement for keeping the article. If you wish to pursue deletion, please open another AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ships[edit]

I noticed that you've created a lot of articles about ships, but you are not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Participants. We have some 3,500 images in commons:Category:Ships of Australia (donated by the State Library of Queensland) that still need to be identified, described, recategorised, etc. 1500 were recategorised after the initial announcement at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_25#5000_images_uploaded, and we are now into the long tail. Are you interested in forming a working group to finish these images? John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the invitation. Regretfully I am busy with other activities at present and would be unable to provide the time required to be of any significant help. Best wishes Gillyweed (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's Not About You[edit]

Can you tell me what needs cleanup on the article It's Not About You? (It may already have been fixed or it might be something that isn't obvious to me. It's something you tagged for cleanup a while back.) RJFJR (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

GetUp! - page edit.[edit]

I would like to know why you continuously re-vert my edit's of the GetUp! page.

My addition that GetUp! is a "left-leaning activist group" is perfectly accurate as cited by 'The Australian' newspaper. It's only fitting that GetUp! be labelled for what it really is. Your revisions are effectively managing the page so that it closely mirrors what can be found on the group’s website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.213.55 (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it should not appear in the lead but in the description further down. There will be others that do not agree with this point and therefore the debate should occur in the criticism section. You are placing your POV (selecting the Australian's view) on the article but putting it in the lead. Gillyweed (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

Just a courtesy note to let you know that Dan Vaillancourt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you proposed for deltion a while back, has been restored because of a request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Gillyweed! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Mahogany Ship[edit]

Hi Gillyweed. Ive done some work on the Mahogany Ship page. Please have a look, Im sure you will have some ideas. Cheers. Nickm57 (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

International Biographical Center[edit]

Hi - thanks for letting me know - responded on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivia[edit]

Trivias are additional information of what or who also has those organs. Plus, those aliens from the 3D animated movie "Escape from Planet Earth" has the vaginas inside their bodies. They also have pubic hair unshaved on them like Kira Supernova and some of the others.--HappyLogolover2011 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing very odd about vaginas inside bodies. I think you might find that humans do as well. Gillyweed (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Berlie Doherty[edit]

Hi. You may know how much to revert (now manually) of fix if this is partly correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berlie_Doherty&diff=534323640&oldid=529920920

--P64 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jalan Air Itam[edit]

Hello, and thanks for tagging this for notability. The tag's still there 5 years later; you could take it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD, or remove the tag if you are no longer concerned. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate Information[edit]

Hi there,

I have changed inaccurate information on Jonathan Self's page a number of times but my changes keep getting deleted. Dromberg House is not the family home. Can you please let me know why you're making these changes?

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1745A (talkcontribs) 13:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for making contact. Your changes are being deleted because the references currently support the assertions made in the article. What references do you have that the claims are incorrect. Are you related to Jonathan Self? Perhaps WP:BLPPRIVACY may suggest a solution of you feel that this is a breach of privacy. If so, I suspect it is grounds for deleting the material. Let me know what you think. Gillyweed (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Battle for Wesnoth rollback[edit]

Hi,

I undid your rollback of IP user 145.94.68.134's edit to The Battle for Wesnoth. As a reminder, rollback is to be used "[t]o revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear" and for other purposes described at WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 14:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my error. I should have taken more care. It looked like the usual bit of vandalism where people stick their own names in. Especially as there was no citation. Inexcusable though really. Thanks for fixing it! Gillyweed (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to David Vernon (writer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geoff Page may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marion Halligan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Def Pen Radio[edit]

FYI - You PRODded this one, it was changed post PROD notice, but they never removed the PROD. After deletion, a user objected, so it has been restored. You may want to consider WP:AfD - unless you think the latest edits are sufficient enough.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nullarbor Nymph Page[edit]

Hello Gillyweed,

I find it really upsetting that the edits I am doing, about my involvement with the Nullarbor Nymph hoax are being removed. I have referenced all that I can and have not written anything but objective fact, all carefully documented on the links I have inserted. What more can I do? I need help to get this right if I'm doing something wrong. This talk system is very difficult to use and you need hours of time to read all the necessary documentation about what you're allowed or not allowed to do. I just want the simple facts about my involvement documented. Nothing complicated. I am now at risk of being banned from editing which will be very unfair and mean that the whole story is not being told. I am not meaning to engage in an editing war.

Dora Dallwitz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dora Dallwitz (talkcontribs) 23:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

International Biographical Centre[edit]

Hello Gillyweed! I got a question on your edit on IBC. It may be true that the ″government consumer advocates have described it as a "scam"″, but a highly compromising information like that is not acceptable without reliable sources, isn't it. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with you accept I would have throught that SCAMNET run by the Western Australian Department of Commerce was a reliable source? http://www.scamnet.wa.gov.au/scamnet/Types_Of_Scams-Directory_Listings_and_registry_schemes-International_Biographical_Centre.htm

Nomination of Robert Coupe for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert Coupe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Coupe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. j⚛e deckertalk 02:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Elinor Gadon for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elinor Gadon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elinor Gadon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article..

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello. Your recent edit to Gympie appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

When I first started editing WP many moons ago it was fine to have 'redlinks' which we then went around and filled out with articles. This seems around the wrong way. The Australian Dictionary of Biography is a fantastic resource that doesn't simply write up everyone in Australia but only those who are notable. The item was well referenced.Gillyweed (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The message you are responding to was not written by me. It is a consensus warning. Yes, our policy on this has changed, mainly due to list bloat of this type. If Gilbert Harry is notable, create the article first, preferably one better than Jason Wilson (navigator): "Wilson experienced danger early on, assisting when his father performed dental opearations on tigers....Educated at Gympie State High, Wilson achieved less than perfect results....Wilson has not actually won any medals to date, but is highly regarded amongst other navigators, and continues to compete at the highest levels. Colleagues have put his lack of success down to a string of unfortunate incidents....A lady's man, Wilson has been connected to some of the most eligible ladies of Gympie, though he enjoys his status as a confirmed bachelor, as testified to in an article in Australia's Maxim. The article also referred to his dress sense, which has split opinion for many years....Wilson has been a keen supporter of Movember since it started in 2004, and usually has some sort of facial hair on display." - SummerPhD (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Radio Birdman[edit]

Hi, could you tell me why you removed my additional sentence from the entry please? Especially since it was true?

Thanks

Troy 20.8.14

Troy von Tempest (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Troy. Material like what you added really requires good references. As it was unreferenced I had to remove it as it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLP Gillyweed (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Financial Ombudsman[edit]

Hi Gilly,

Made few changes on wiki for Financial Ombudsman Service (Australia) you undid them based on references. I am just wondering if you have any recommendations on how to improve.. Should I just add in sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOSBusters (talkcontribs) 10:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. All statements need references. Gillyweed (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015[edit]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 02 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 09 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 16 December 2015[edit]

Season's Greetings[edit]

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 06 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 13 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 20 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 27 January 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 03 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 10 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 February 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 02 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 09 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 16 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 24 April 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 17 May 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2016[edit]

Reference errors on 28 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

Old sources template on Milan Chvostek?[edit]

Hiya, Gillyweed. I was going through some pages I had edited in the dim and distant past and found that the "BLP sources" template you added to Milan Chvostek in September 2007 is still in place. It appears that I added some references in 2010 which have since ceased to exist. What do you think is the best next step? Shall I update those references to their links at archive.org? Anything else you'd suggest? Thanks for your suggestions. :-)  ◉ ghoti 06:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Gillyweed,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gillyweed. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Lights ablaze.JPG

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Nomination of Graham Jones (Australian author) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Graham Jones (Australian author) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Jones (Australian author) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rogermx (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 5 August 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 6 September 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 25 September 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 24 November 2017[edit]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gillyweed. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017[edit]

Seasons' Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

Nomination of John (1803 ship) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John (1803 ship) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John (1803 ship) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 18:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jane (ship) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jane (ship) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane (ship) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 23:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 1 October 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 28 October 2018[edit]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Gillyweed. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 December 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 31 March 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019[edit]

The June 2019 Signpost is out![edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

Nomination of Michael Ridley for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Ridley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ridley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — MarkH21 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019[edit]

The Signpost: 31 October 2019[edit]