User talk:GeneralBelly/Archive 1

AfD nomination of Widdess lecture
An editor has nominated Widdess lecture, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. 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. Jayden54Bot 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Brain fag, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Charles 17:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Brain fag
Hi there; I do not think that anyone has accused you of homophobia, or of anything else. And I take note that you are a medical student. I am a medical practitioner of some 39 years experience, including a great deal of psychiatry; I would accept, none of it in Africa. The reference in your article is circular, in that it redirects itself back to your article without stopping anywhere meaningful. I do not see in your reference anything indicating that this condition is real. I will however, wait 24 hours before deleting it again; I cannot commit other admins on this point. We will need to see specific references to this condition, not just to somatic or cultural disorders in general. Good luck with the studies.--Anthony.bradbury 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Speedy Deletion Warning
A tag has been placed on Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Boricuaeddie Talk • Contribs  •  Spread   the love! 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is a reply to your comments on my talk page. The tag it currently has was not posted by me, so I think I should not be bothered with comments regarding it. However, if it has been already deemed unworthy of a place in Wikipeidia more than one time, I suggest you stop re-creating it and continue contributing to this encyclopedia in other ways, as re-creating previously deleted articles without first consulting other Wikipedians is considered vandalism. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie Talk •  Contribs  •  Spread   the love! 16:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Planet Unicorn
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Planet Unicorn, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Tipperary Institute
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tipperary Institute, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Tipperary institute. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Conmalone. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. βcommand 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Iona Institute
You're welcome! I felt the original article was too POV - more like a press release or advertising for them. Given the position that they'd taken on the same-sex marriage issue, they'd been criticised quite fairly and that needed to be added to the article. Autarch (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Colm O'Gorman
Hi there, thanks for the question. I have to admit that I can't recall specifically why I flagged the article but I'm sure that I would have said so on the Talk page of the article. It may have been removed or something, I'm not sure. I've checked the article again and I guess my problem is that it comes across as non-neutral. For example, the article says that he was sexually abused by someone but there is no link to a court finding that that was what occurred. I'm not sure what happens if someone dies before they go on trial. Are they still called "allegations" or are they upgraded to "facts"? It might be safer to say something like "Colm claims to have been abused by X" and then cite the evidence (multiple allegations, Church settlement etc.) The allegation is repeated in a few other articles eg "Sex Crimes and the Vatican (film)" as though it's an established fact.

I tend to blog a lot these days so I don't really do much editing on Wikipedia, so if you disagree with me and think that the article(s) are appropriate, I probably won't argue too much about it. If you want to just tweak it a bit to make it a bit more neutral then that would be good too.

GuyIncognito (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrested Development Taskforce Invite
Hey there. I couldn't help noticing that you appear to be interested in Arrested Development. I am interested in setting up a Arrested Development Taskforce to improve articles related to Arrested Development. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If you are interested in joining, please add your name here or contact me on my talk page. Thankyou, Joelster (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity School of Medicine
Would you like to participate in the development of the Wikiversity School of Medicine? Please join our discussion regarding the content of our first curriculum. As a medical student, your input would be very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.182.246 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!
Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:
 * Read our Manual of Style for medical articles
 * Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is )
 * Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
 * Have a look at some related WikiProjects
 * Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on.

Again, welcome! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ex-Gay Page
I have revised the material you reverted in a way that I believe will address your concerns. If you still have concerns, I would ask that you please let me know exactly what you object to, rather than simply reverting everything. I believe that my sentence regarding the Spitzer research is fully accurate and not POV. Thank you.

SCBC (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz
I noticed that you reverted a subject heading that I inserted on this page. I believe that the heading you re-inserted -- "Opposition to Gay Rights" -- is POV, which is why I revised it in the first place. I would propose an alternative: "Stances on Gay Issues and Traditional Marriage." Do you find that alternative to be acceptable? I will wait a few days to hear back from you before making that change. Thank you.

SCBC (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ruben Diaz and Ex-Gay Page
You have a point regarding the timing of Spitzer's study. However, to say that it would be insignificant even if it was published yesterday is quite far-fetched, given that Spitzer was an active proponent of removing homosexuality from the DSM back in the 1970's. In any event, I will back off on this issue.

Regarding Ruben Diaz, what makes the heading "Opposition to Gay Rights" POV is the fact that (a) it positions the senator as being "opposed to" something rather than in favor of something (which in itself carries a negative connotation); and (b) it positions the senator as being opposed to the rights of a person or group of people, which is very debatable in this instance and which carries an extremely negative connotation. I have made a good-faith effort to come up with an alternative that would be acceptable to both of us, but you have reverted it. As a New York resident who has met the senator, has read his writings on these issues, and has heard him speak multiple times, I think your language is both unfair to the senator and POV, and I continue to object to it.

SCBC (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the APA document, I do believe that for the APA to reference clients' self-determination -- making at least a slight nod to the reality that some clients choose to pursue reparative therapy -- is indeed a slight softening of the APA's previous position. On second thought, it probably isn't noteworthy enough to be included in the entry.

It is quite obvious that neither of us is coming from an impartial perspective on these issues (I see that you identify as LGBT) and that we both have strong views about them. Since Wikipedia's entries on gay issues invariably slant toward your perspective (you may not even realize that the slant is there, but it is), I endeavor to provide some balance. In hindsight, my initial changes to the ex-gay page may have gone a bit too far in the opposite direction, just as I believe your changes to the Ruben Diaz page have done.

Regarding the subject heading on the Ruben Diaz page, "traditional marriage" is a widely understood and accepted phrase that refers to support for marriage as the union of one woman and one man. For more information on the topic, see Traditional marriage movement. The justification you gave for reverting that change is clever, but it is completely accurate to describe the senator's position as "traditional marriage advocacy." (To respond to your other point regarding LGBT rights -- one issue in the discourse on same-sex marriage is whether or not a right to same-sex marriage exists. Using the phrase "Opposition to Gay Rights" to describe the senator's support for an opposite-sex definition of marriage implies that there is a right to same-sex marriage and that the senator is opposing it; that is what makes it POV.)  I am going to change the heading back once more and I would ask that you please leave my changes intact this time. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCBC (talk • contribs) 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My compromise heading (the one I approached you about in the first place, remember?) -- Stances on Gay Issues and Traditional Marriage -- was accurate and not POV. I don't see a reason that any editor would have a problem with it, either. If you had left that heading as it was instead of immediately reverting it and giving me a lecture on the meaning of "gay rights" (by the way, I'd be more than capable of giving that lecture myself if I wanted to, based on my past days in the gay rights movement), I would not have reacted the way I did, the rest of the conversation would have been unnecessary, and we both would have saved portions of the last hour of our lives that we will never get back.

About "peaceful editing:" I do not have a problem with you challenging material I have written when you have a good-faith basis for it (as I believe you did in these instances). That is what Wikipedia is about. You clearly are very bright, and it is fine for you to keep me on my toes, but I want to politely let you know that your words come across as a bit condescending. (Maybe it's unintentional.) If you would ease up on the condescension, I'm confident that I'd be able to disagree with you more amicably in the future.

Good night.

SCBC (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
Conmalone, I have undone the last several edits you made to the article on conversion therapy. Your first edit changed the wording of the lede in ways that I consider unnecessary. Your second edit seemed to suggest that conversion therapy is sometimes used to change heterosexuality to homosexuality which, as far as I know, is nonsense. Your changes to the wording regarding medical consensus were also quite unnecessary. Skoojal (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded on Talk:Conversion therapy and User talk:Skoojal. Conor (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Conversion therapy
Regarding your edit to Talk:Conversion therapy: I have to point out that this page never seems to have had proper archives. Deleting past discussions is the way this problem has been dealt with in the past; that seems to have been what Fireplace did back in April 2008. So, if you're going to create an archive, it would hardly make sense just to archive parts of what is on the talk page now, you'd have to do this for the deleted discussions as well. Skoojal (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ownership?
GeneralBelly, on Haiduc's talk page recently you wrote, 'After seeing your posts on the LGBT board (kudos), I thought you might be interested in looking at Talk:Conversion therapy and perhaps examining any ownership issues that might be more apparent to someone not involved in editing it.' If this was directed at me, let me reply: I don't try to 'own' articles. Skoojal (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Skoojal,


 * Thanks for your comment/question. That was a general request for all edits to be assessed for ownership issues - my own included.  I fully realise that I'm not immune to bias.  I hope that clears things up.  Peace. Conor (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy
GeneralBelly, on the conversion therapy talk page a while ago you wrote that I, 'have reverted every single edit I have ever made to this article.' I'd like to note that I basically agree with a recent proposal you've made about that article; said something about that on the talk page. Skoojal (talk) 04:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandifer syndrome
Hi! There was a missing / in the instance immediately before the BMJ reference was first defined ... which made the software become confused :) Happy editing THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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

why did you revert?
why did you revert my edits? Stopkommernism (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You replaced the CWFA official site link with a link to a website that appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the article in question. GeneralBelly (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


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


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

And why did you revert the tag that I deleted on the Sandi Toksvig talk page? The expanded tag reads... "This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia."

Your edits to List of drag queens
Please do not add unsourced information to an article which explicitly states at the top "All entries must be sourced." Thank you. Kaldari (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Kaldari. The way I read it, articles linked to on the list must have references in them - I added links to articles about drag queens, not just names.  If that is not what is meant, then clearer language should be used.  Why must a source be added to a listing page anyway?  Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason is that this particular list was deleted a few days ago per WP:BLP concerns, and then recreated on the condition that all entries would be explicitly referenced to a source. By adding entries without explicit sources, you are helping the case of those arguing to redelete the list. There is a undeletion discussion about the list currently ongoing. Kaldari (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I realise that, but I'm asking why the list page entry needs to be sourced, as opposed to the articles linked having sources within them. We don't source every internal link on WP, e.g. [].  Surely if I add a drag queen to the list, I only need to add a source if there is no reference on his/her article's page?  GeneralBelly (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles must conform to policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP on their own. We cannot rely on linked articles to supply the proper citations. Plus, without putting the citations directly in the article, how would we know at any given time that all of the people listed were properly cited in their articles. It would be a maintenance nightmare. Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused as to why we need citations for this list when most lists I've seen have no references whatsoever... but I'll find sources and then add the names back. Cheers anyway, GeneralBelly (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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


 * Hi Tom. No-one is suggesting that Toksvig herself is an "LGBT issue".  You are correct that there are many lesbians in the world and for that WikiProject LGBT studies includes prominent LGBT People, i.e. notable gay, lesbian or bisexual people.  WP:LGBT states that "[f]amous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed."  Toksvig can be included in that list of notable, out LGBT people; hence the tag on her article's discussion page.  My revision was not based on my own feelings about Toksvig, but rather done as part of a Wikiproject.  If you have a problem with the criteria for such tagging, please direct questions or suggestions to the LGBT noticeboard, where more qualified editors can help you.  Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article itself is appropriately tagged at the bottom with a fair and accurate category.That is not the issue. My point is (and you have not disputed it) is that she herself is NOT an issue. But THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE TAG SAYS! Which is why is if she is NOT an issue, that particular tag should be removed. I ask you politely to think again.--Tom (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've responded here. GeneralBelly (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Thank you, General Belly
Dear General,

Okay. Thanks for your editorial help on this one.

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

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

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

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

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

Need your assistance, if possible
Dear General,

I just saw the Weasel Word tag again.

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know, and I will do it.

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

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

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

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

I would really appreciate it.

Thank you in either case.

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

I need your assistance
Dear General,

I just saw the Weasel Word tag again.

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know, and I will do it.

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

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

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

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

I would really appreciate it.

Thank you in either case.

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

Thank you...Issues will be addressed
Dear General,

Thank you for specifying your instances of weasel words.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again for providing specifics.

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

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

Thank you...Issues will be addressed
Dear General,

Thank you for specifying your instances of weasel words.

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you again for providing specifics.

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

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

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

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

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

Please review the article in its current form.

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

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

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

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

Thanks again,

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

Thank you GeneralBelly
Dear General,

Thank you for removing the Weasel Tag.

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Government Publications
Dear General,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MBernal615

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

Photos
From GeneralBelly:


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

Dear General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks as always,

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

could you review my theory please
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_unnatural_selection —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameiselder (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I deleted the page as WP:OR, if you still want to see it, I moved it to the user page for now, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Thank you,

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


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

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

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

Lydia Foy
Hi,

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

Thanks,

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

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Bertie Ahern
Hi, WP:BLP is pretty strict on sourcing, and there was no reference for your addition of teh Category "Honorary Fellows of the College of Surgeons", so I've had to remove it; pease feel free to re-add, with source; thanks. Rodhull andemu  00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. GeneralBelly (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

casino at marino
Why did you revert my edit on this article? Casino does not mean "small house" and Marino does not mean "by the sea". Check any Italian dictionary....unlike English, grammar, endings and gender are important in Italian and can change meanings of words if used incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.99.191 (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Sorry, your edit appeared to be vandalism (anonymous user, spelling errors, mentioning brothel, no sources). I'd suggest you add the information back in with a reference to back it up. Cheers, GeneralBelly (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

Full Armor of God Broadcast

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

CfD nomination of Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
I have nominated honorary fellows of the royal college of surgeons in ireland for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 23:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Iona Institute
Hi BellyAche,

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

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

Regards,

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

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


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

Talkback
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


 * Hi there. Thanks for the comments.  The II positions are conservative in the sense of general conservative values, e.g. nuclear family, against divorce, against sex before marriage, against same-sex marriage, etc.  It should be read as a Catholic group which is conservative, not labelling them as a Traditionalist/Conservative Catholic group.  I think if we add a comma to make it conservative, Catholic think tank, that should be clear enough.  It's not NPOV to classify them as liberal/conservative, any more than it is to describe a political party as same, or a dress as red/black/blue, or a film as horror/comedy, etc.  It's not pejorative or controversial.  GeneralBelly (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I just wonder is there a clearer way of phrasing it, so it can't be miss read as conservative catholic. In the catholic world conservative catholic has a very specific meaning. My reasoning was that the term "catholic" would be sufficient to convey its world view with out any chance of Traditionalist/Conservative Catholic mis-understaning.--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the article's talk page, I just wanted to clarify my revert of your revert. I didn't want to end up getting my IP blocked. I didn't mean to citizie you. Sorry.--92.251.255.13 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the average reader will read it as conservative in the sense of "not liberal"; the comma and the wikilink to conservatism will hopefully help avoid confusion. I was almost a priest once(!), so I know what you mean about the term Conservative Catholic, but to be honest I think that only a small number of readers would think that way.  No worries re: criticism, that's how wikipedia gets better.  Have you considered registering?  The whole IP thing can be a hassle.  Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Louth Meath Hospital Group


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

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

You may want to read the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 17:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Status and Advice
As reviewing administrator, I took a look, and since it asserts being composed of notable hospitals, it indicates some importance. But without more information, I really do not see it as a separate article, so I changed it to a redirect to the one hospital in the group that has an article. Feel free to edit it, but what's the point without some material? What might work very well is to move the material on the constituent hospital there, and redirect from that name, adding sections for the other hospitals. If you do this and it requires me to delete anything to permit the move, let me know.  DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, thanks for your note. The hospital group seems notable - in fact it was mentioned today in Ireland's paper of record with no need for definition or explanation .  I am currently working my way through the list of Irish hospitals without articles.  I would suggest it be left in place and I will hopefully have it filled out soon.  Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Hi Off2riorob - yes, I did when writing the original article. GeneralBelly (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you email me the content from the article that relates to the supported content. It seems the whole criticism section which is quite accusatory is all cited to this one pay per view location which troubles me a bit when I can't investigate it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't access it any more either - they put up a paywall recently, like the NYT. The link was freely available at the time the article was written and of course the hard copy newspaper archives remain as a permanent record.  The criticism section reflects what appeared in the source referenced, which is the paper of record. I've removed the heading "Criticism" and merged the subsections into the previous section. GeneralBelly (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that might help. I didn't like the section/subs.. headings - I am logging of soon and will have a little look tomorrow, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Entries (two) on the paintings "Pinkie" and "Blue Boy"
Hello General, Please be tolerant if I'm going about this incorrectly as this is my first attempt at requesting another voluteer's assistance or input...

I'm turning to you because my interest relates to the origin of the modern social norm: "Pink is for Girls, Blue is for Boys". I find this topic fascinating on numerous fronts. I happened to go to the entry for the oil painting "Pinkie", (1794 portrait by Thomas Lawrence) which has hung opposite "The Blue Boy" (Thomas Gainsborough) at the Huntington Library since the 1920's. After reading, I posted my thoughts on Talk:Pinkie (Lawrence painting) I wrote that I'd just recently read that Macy's Department Store (New York) either invented or promoted the heretofore (apparently) nonexistent pink or blue notion sometime in the 1920's or early 1930's, with or without the aid of outside advertising expertise, with the intent to effectively double its sales of infants' clothing and eliminating hand-me-downs by 50% by gendering them via color association. I can't relocate my source for this story, but whether it was initiated by Macy's or not, the adoption of this 'color ID' social norm affected consumerism tremendously in every aspect of fashion and design from clothing to furniture to wall coverings, on and on, and furthermore affected human communication by becoming a silent signal for proud new parents to indicate to passers-by whether the infant in their buggy was male or female without embarrassing baby gender gaffes.

Pink or blue, however one regards this norm, quickly permeated all aspects of today's culture and arguably its psyche, as well as perhaps being one of the greatest coups in commercial advertising history. "The two works had no association until Henry Huntington purchased them in the 1920s." (Bernal, Peggy Park (1992). The Huntington: Library, Art Collections, Botanical Gardens. San Marino, California: The Huntington Library.) states the Pinkie page. I'm a man of 62. At around age 7, I remember asking my mother about her pair of bedroom lamps. With sudden sentiment she schooled me, "They were a wedding gift. This one is Pinkie and that's her Blue Boy." I've asked several younger people if they 'know anything about Pinkie and Blue Boy.' The response has invariably been, "No." Yet without exception, everyone knows pink = girl and blue = boy. In fact, so few disregard this "rule" in our culture that it's as if it were an innate law of nature from the beginning.

In short, I suspect this entry (and its companion entry, Blue Boy) has yet to tell the most fascinating, lasting and socially influential saga surrounding these two paintings: What occurred when Mr. Huntington momentously brought them together and Madison Avenue went to work on the American consumer.

Is this something that might interest you? And/or can you maybe direct me to others who might have an interest in pursuing this?

Thank you, Mykstor (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Los Angeles

Please comment at Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore's ongoing peer review!
Since you have listed yourself as a peer review volunteer interested in the social sciences, would you like to support the quest to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia by giving a thorough review of the article Movement for the Intellectually Disabled of Singapore? MINDS turns 50 this year and getting their article to GA status would be a great way to appreciate their support of intellectually disabled Singaporeans. Thanks! 谢谢！Terima kasih! நன்றி! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Would appreciate review :)
Hi GeneralBelly,

I have noticed your name listed on the Wiki help page, I was wondering if you would like to review/edit my article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemonium_architecture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmierock (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Medicine
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)