User talk:GroovyGuzi

Update to the EUROCALL article, 30 November 2010
As it was finally decided to retain the article on EUROCALL, I have updated it to reflect the move of the EUROCALL HQ from the University of Limerick to the University of Ulster and added additional information on EUROCALL's Special Interest Groups. I have also checked the links and tidied up citations and references: /EUROCALL article debate

GroovyGuzi (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Major rewrite of the article on Computer-assisted language learning, 30 November 2010
I am currently editing the article on Computer-assisted language learning. It was in fairly good shape after another editor revised it in 2007, but over the course of the next three years it suffered from additional edits that did nothing to improve the article but only served to make it confusing, repetitive and badly organised. I have already made many amendments and I have a plan in place for additional sections. Ideas and suggestions for improvement are welcomed.

GroovyGuzi (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I completed the rewrite of this article in early 2011. In the meantime I have made a few corrections and additions, and the article has been tidied up by bots and other editors. Unfortunately, the article was almost immediately subjected to rogue edits that are inappropriate to the structure of the article as a whole and which express a biased and outdated view of CALL. Fortunately, the rogue edits were spotted by a Wikipedia editor and reversed.

GroovyGuzi (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you reverse my header about the English software redirect? I think it is pretty reasonable that somebody might type in lower case when actually looking for English Software. Could the English software redirect not just be deleted? It has nothing linking to it.Retro junkie (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogme language teaching
Hi there - I see you've contributed to Articles for deletion/Dogme language teaching. Thank you for your comments. I just wanted to point out that it's not considered good Wikipedia etiquette to include the bold text Keep twice in one deletion discussion. Although these discussions are not votes, writing "keep" twice like this could mislead someone who was just glancing over the discussion. Would you mind removing one of them? Personally I think Dogme language teaching has a good chance of being kept unless someone objects to the sources I referred to in the discussion, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 14:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The second Keep appeared as it was an afterthought. I'll knock it out.GroovyGuzi (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing it, I appreciate it. About the sources that I said weren't reliable, I was referring to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, not the general meaning of "reliable". I'm sure that the sources you listed are reliable in the general sense (in that their contents is probably accurate), but Wikipedia policy requires things like peer-review or a respectable editorial team for articles to be considered reliable. There's no peer review for a Yahoo mailing list, and I agree that Howard Vickers is a respected English teacher, but I'm not convinced that his website has either peer-review or an editorial checking process. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this. The Wikipedia policy is at Identifying reliable sources if you want to have a look at it.
 * Probably the most persuasive type of article to bring to deletion discussions is a scholarly article published in a respectable journal written by someone with no primary relation to the topic. If you are aware of any of Howard Vickers' articles about Dogme that are published in journals or in conference proceedings, that would be ideal evidence to bring to this discussion. I made a small attempt to find some, and there looked to be some likely candidates in the article itself, but the more there are the better chance this article will have of being kept. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius  ( drop me a line ) 20:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair comment. I am very aware of the concept of reliable sources. I am a reviewer for CUP, and I have also worked as a reviewer for the online Language Learning and Technology Journal (http://llt.msu.edu/) and as a series editor for Taylor & Francis, as well as having written articles on Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) for encyclopaedias published by Routledge and Elsevier. You are right about Howard Vickers' website. I have not found a published peer-reviewed article on DOGME that he has written, but I have heard him speak in online conferences on the topic of DOGME, and he appears to know his stuff. I have also heard Scott Thornbury speak in online conferences. We are facing an increasing problem of finding reliable peer-reviewed sources. Many prominent authors now publish exclusively on the Web. I must admit I do too. I have not had a single peer-reviewed article published in print since 2003. I am now happily retired, so I am out of the "publish or perish" race. I now go straight to the Web as I do not have to wait for the lengthy peer-review process to take place. I have recently revised the Routledge article on CALL, but it takes 18 months for it to appear in print, by which time it will be out of date. I must admit I am just finding my feet in Wikipedia, but I'll get there in the end.

BTW, I notice that you are working on the Wikipedia Second language acquisition article, where my former colleague Rod Ellis is cited several times. Any thoughts on including references to Carol Chapelle, who is a specialist in SLA and new technologies? (I have worked with her too.)

GroovyGuzi (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article on Virtual World Language Learning
I have begun editing an article on Virtual world language learning that was initiated around two years ago. It had not been touched for some time and had begun to get seriously out of date, but as soon as I began adding new links another editor jumped in and added many more new links - most of which language teachers who work in this field would not regard as relevant. I was particularly concerned when links that I added relating to the AVALON project and EduNation Islands were removed by the same editor. This was the text that I added:

''Recent examples of creating sims in virtual worlds specifically for language education include the EC-funded NIFLAR and AVALON projects. NIFLAR is implemented both in Second Life and in Opensim. The EduNation Islands have also been set up as a community of educators aiming to provide information about and facilities for language learning and teaching. ''

The reference to NIFLAR was left in, however. I have added the above text once again today, 8 March 2011. Let's see how long it lasts. It is clear who is removing the text. The individual is well-known to the EFL and CALL communities, and so are his personal gripes and attacks. See the the article's discussion page, which says it all.

GroovyGuzi (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and on Audrey Hepburn
I have made minor contributions to the article on Pseudomyxoma Peritonei and on Audrey Hepburn. My interest in both these articles arises because I was diagnosed with a form of this rare form of cancer in 2006 and Audrey Hepburn is one of the very few prominent people who suffered and eventually died from this disease.

GroovyGuzi (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ICT4LT


A tag has been placed on ICT4LT requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Freebirds Howdy!  18:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)