User talk:Ivygohnair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ivygohnair, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! jaco♫plane 12:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] re:Ivy Goh Nair

Hello, Ivygohnair. You are advised to work on your user page (User: Ivygohnair) Thanks. -- PFHLai 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello user PFHLai, Thanks for your comments. I have reworked on the page since your last remarks.

I find that there are a lot of gaps about Singapore literature in Wikipedia that I can assist in filling, as I have been around the literary scene much, much longer than you or the other singaporean contributors today. For instance, I wish to work on pages for Goh Poh Seng, Lee Tzu Pheng Kirpal Singh, Robert Yeo and other significant members of our literary scene which are not represented in Wikipedia at the present moment.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivygohnair (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Need help, Ivygohnair ?
We need more knowledgeable people like you. Please feel free to contribute to any articles the way you see fit. If there is a problem, someone will either fix or tell you about it (or both) -- this is wikipedian way. BTW, As a courtesy for other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your talk page and user talk page posts. To do so simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion).For further info see the talk page guidelines. Thank you.
If you need further help, please visit Wikipedia:Community Portal (lots of useful resources), or you may want to post {{helpme}} on your user talkpage.
Good luck. -- PFHLai 11:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I didn't delete any favorable comments. By the way, I am an admin. utcursch | talk 09:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I am sorry to have thought that it might have been you as you were the last person to comment. My sincere apologies again.Ivygohnair 09:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Culprit

It was User:Sengkang, a fellow Singaporean, who deleted the favourable comment. Vyse was probably a sockpuppet (now that I know what a sockpuppet is) of his. To be even handed admin should check this out.Ivygohnair 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I only managed to discover this today, which shows how handicapped unnerdy senior citizens like me are in Wikipedia. The question that immediately comes to mind is:why didn't admin restore the comment? (see below) Ivygohnair 03:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Re: Ivy Goh Nair

Below is the reply to the comment I put in User Utcursch talk page:

"Hey I just discovered that you hate the caste system and want to delete the "List of Famous Nairs" very badly. It leads me to wonder whether your "delete" vote on my page was not a conflict of interest since my name is nair. Believe me neither my hubby nor I are believers in the caste system, otherwise he would not have married me! But having said that I was puzzled that a "friendly" (as you describe yourself) admin would vote "not notable enough" (without giving any explanation whatsoever) for a book which was favourably reviewed by both the local and international press and caused quite a stir when it was first published because it was one of the first books considered "critical" of Singapore.Ivygohnair 17:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)"Ivygohnair 09:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Dear Ms. Ivy Goh Nair, I indeed hate the caste system very much (I'm neither Dalit nor Brahmin -- I am anti-caste person). But that was not the reason I voted "Delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivy Goh Nair. Had that been the reason, I would have probably moved many other articles to deletion: C. Sankaran Nair, Chandran Nair, Kavalappara Narayanan Nair etc.(never heard of the phrase "going for the soft belly?")Ivygohnair 09:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Writing a book doesn't make a personal notable enough for Wikipedia. The fact that Ivy Goh Nair was written by your husband makes it less verifiable (please see Wikipedia:Autobiography). (Somewhere else in the wikepedia rules which are supposed to be only guidelines and flexible, it says that in exceptional cases the article can be edited by the author himself/herself or his agent. In this case both editors are experts in this field and eminently qualified to edit other notables in the field, whatever the relationship may be)Ivygohnair 09:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC) The only criteria for voting delete was non-notability -- please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't claim that I have excellent knowledge about journalism and literature in Singapore( sadly this is indeed the case!)e,Ivygohnair 09:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC) but Wikipedia:Search engine test indicates that you're not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia: [1][2]. Most of the few search results that I got are from personal sites such as eurekster.com, ivygohnair.tk, brinkster.com etc.

On notability

(I read somewhere in the Wikipedia rules that when a book is not easily available it helps on judging its "notablilty", when a verifiable review is available on the internet. My book was reviewed by the Asian Wall Street Journal when it was first published and here is the link Review by Ian Gill I would like to point out to User Utcursch that even though this review appeared in my own official website, the Asian Wall Street Journal is not an unknown paper and the review can be verifiable from the archives.)Ivygohnair 09:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC) I have dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board -- the discussion page for Wikipedians from Singapore and Wikipedians who are writing about Singapore-related topics.( this was done after the editors had requested the article to be withdrawn , therefore the motives of this user are called into question)Ivygohnair 09:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)I have invited them to to have a look. Just in case the article gets deleted, I will suggest that the content of the article be merged to User:Ivygohnair (see Wikipedia:Userfication).

Hey,

I don't know why this debate is persisting as the request has been made a few days ago to withdraw the article by the editors themselves because the debate had degenerated into petty attacks and users deleting favourable comments. I read up Wikipedia rules and while admins are greatly appreciated for the work they do for the site (I am sure you yourself have done a lot) they have an even greater reponsiblity to be fair and even handed . . .User:Ivygohnair|Ivygohnair]] 06:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion. My apologies to all the users from all over the world who wrote in to support the non deletion of the page Ivy Goh Nair. They can however find me at Google and other search engines.Ivygohnair 09:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

NB THE ARTICLE "IVY GOH NAIR" WAS REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE REQUEST BY THE EDITOR, CHANDRAN NAIR HIMSELF(MADE ON OCT 20)BECAUSE THE DEBATE PAGE HAD DEGENERATED INTO PERSONAL ATTACKS AND THE DELETION OF POSITIVE COMMENTS BY USERSIvygohnair 09:52, 24 October 2006

[edit] Article

I've preserved the content of the article at your subpage: User:Ivygohnair/Ivy Goh Nair. You may chose to move it to User:Ivygohnair. In case you don't want the subpage, please include {{subst:csd|user request}} on the subpage. I hope this issue doesn't discourage you from using and editing Wikipedia. Please feel free to drop me a note in case of any clarifications. Thanks. utcursch | talk 08:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your comments on my talk page

Dear Ms. Ivy Goh Nair,

Your recent comments on my talk page ("never heard of the phrase going for the soft belly?") are almost like a personal attack. I'd like to point out it was not me who nominated the article for deletion. There was only one reason for article being nominated for deletion and other users voting delete: Non-notability. Writing a book and getting few reviews for it doesn't make a person notable enough for Wikipedia. Many books and their reviews are written every day -- that doesn't make the authors of those books notable.

I posted a message at Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board three days before the deletion debate was closed.So, my motive should not be questioned (However it was some time after the editor requested the withdrawal of the article, so your motive is questionable!)Ivygohnair 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC) . I acknowledge that every notable person doesn't have a formidable presenece on the Internet, and I don't have much knowledge about journalism/literature in scene in Singapore. So, I decided to ask users who know better about Singapore. The reply from User:Terence Ong confirmed that the subject of the article is not notable enough. In case of a favorable opinion, the article would have not been deleted.( what immense subjectivity! Do you mean that one young singaporean's assertion that he has not heard about me is the reason for for your judgement that a book reviewed by the international and local press so favourably is unnotable? You are entitled to have your own opinion of the notability of the page. But are you not abusing your authority as a admin to be the final arbitrator of an issue that didn't even need to be arbitrated as the creators had requested the withdrawal of the article? Even if we go along with allowing you to arbitrate, what was your criterion for doing it? Did you take a head count? (I had as many favourable comments as unfavourable ones), did you consider users who gave reasoned and intelligent comments more weightily than just someone who writes "off with her head, I never heard of her"? And why should Terence Ong (who recently posted:"I have to mug, my Maths is goyak and I need to practice it, I can't even solve some factorisation questions. :X Maybe after 27 October, but Loke Yew is not that notable after all. --Terence Ong") have the last say?)Ivygohnair 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC) If you feel my conduct was not right, or that the article deletion was not treated in accordance with the policies, you are welcome to file an RfC against me or on this issue (Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment for the same). Thank You. utcursch | talk 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear User Utcursch,

I question the whole way that my article was treated from the beginning. I do not need to make a RfC against you because it is not a personal conflict with you. I have to insist that your posting a message on talk SGpedians notice board was done after the creator himself had requested for the withdrawal of the article. I just want to make the record clear that the final deletion of the article was due to our request and not for any other reason. BTW the average age of the users who go to talk SGpedians forum are so young that they understandably haven't heard of me. When my book was launched, it was not only reviewed favourably by the local and international press, it was also sold out. My teenage brother-in-law came home one day and said that school children were reading the book in the bus! That was how starved Singaporeans were at that time for anything that did not toe the official line. It did make a difference in the "history" of Singapore because it was considered one of the first "critical" books which was accepted by the authorities (refer to book reviews cited). (The then deputy prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong came to the book signing ceremony). Professor Tommy Koh the then respected Singapore embassador to the UN endorsed this claim (that the book made a difference) in the forward he wrote to the book.

Anyway the "Notability" of my page is not in question here as the article has been withdrawn. And even you have to admit that your personal judgment (and you have admitted that you are no expert in the matter) and the judgements of a few others (who have not elaborated on their reasons for delete, unlike my supporters) are not sufficient to determine notability. As the debate has been closed so early, I don't think that we can establish "notabilty" or "unnotabilty" . This is besides the point anyway. Ivygohnair 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the AfD Debate

A tag has been placed on Ivy Goh Nair, 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 website, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why Ivy Goh Nair is really notable, I advise you to edit the article promptly, and also put a note on Talk:Ivy Goh Nair. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article.

Negative Votes

  • delete - The original editor was User:Ivygohnair so it was marked as a vanity article for violating WP:AUTO. User:Mapetite526 21:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Ignorance of the rules is not a valid argument for keeping an article.User: Vyse 16:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable enough.User:utcursch | talk 06:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral/Positive Votes

  • Procedural nomination. Speedy A7 was applied, but was contested and this warrants a further look. I'm neutral for now (even though this article doesn't seem to be).User:ColourBurst 21:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question:CSD A7 is "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites.". Is that the reason for the AfD too? According to Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines "As explained below, an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is."User:Edward Wakelin 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It is true that I have come into the fray to defend Ivy Goh Nair from speedy deletion and that her last page was actually uploaded by me. I think if you want to apply the "vanity" label because one person edits the other and vice versa, it would only be fair to examine each case on its own merit. Both user:ivygohnair and user:chandrannair are established figures in the field that is being discussed: ie Singapore literature and writing; secondly, it should be considered in their favour that they have used their own names and not fictitious names as user names; If this had been the case, the problem wouldn't have arisen. Therefore I think there is much merit in User: Edward Wakelin remarks above and that an author's conflict of interest is by itself not a basis for deletion. User:Chandrannair (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC).


  • Comment: Let's be nice to newcomers, as per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This seems like a case where newcomers not knowing the "rules" here. An author of 1 bestseller may be notable enough to get an article in an encyclopedia. Perhaps this biography needs some fixing, as per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Deleting is probably unnecessary. --User:PFHLai 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read her book, though I'm not from Singapore and it's better than a lot of the stuff that makes it to the NY Times best seller list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.91.147.159 (talk • contribs).
  • –New to all this in wikipedia... I think the mood to delete is harsh. This is a user who seems to have made a definite impact in a small place, and is trying to popularise the creative energies of Singapore. Let us be more forgiving! Besides it looks there is actual published reviews as testament to the work. Mcporpington 21:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)mcporpington Sorry I meant to add to my comment above that the article should NOT be deleted! Mcporpington 21:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)mcporpington
  • Hi - I am saddened to read such biting, petty comments and suggestions about deleting this article. This person has clearly contributed to Singapore literature and has also been cited by others. signed - 22:58, 18 October 2006 Phillygal27
  • I did my military service in Singapore and I love the country. I vote to KEEP. I do not see any conflict of interest here User:Jean-Louis77 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • do not see a reason for deleting.I vote to keep. User:203.120.68.73|203.120.68.73 17:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC) This comment was deleted by User:SengKang and never restored by Admin.(see above)

[edit] Withdrawal of Page

The article was removed at the request of the editor, user:Channdrannair (made on Oct 20) because the debate had degenerated into personal attacks and the deletion of positive comments by users.

[edit] SGpedians Notice Board

An admin posted this on the community notice board after the creators of the page had already withdrawn the article:

"I'm not sure whether this person is notable or not. Google says no. Will somebody please have a look. Thanks". utcursch | talk 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Pure vanity, person is non-notable. Never heard of her. I've heard of Ivy Singh Lee not Ivy Goh Nair. The former is a netballer association president and runs a veggie farm in Kranji. --"User:Terence Ong (T | C) 10:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC


[edit] Hacking into my User Account

I know nothing about this matter; the article history clearly shows your account being used to make the edit, and there's really no way for anyone to hack your Wikipedia account without having access to your password. For that matter, I have no personal interest in you or your husband - all I did was to ask for an unblock where I saw a block was inappropriate.User Ryan-D, 7 jan 2007

Someone did hack into my account. You can take my word for it. It is simplistic to assume that no one can hack into a wikipedia account, when banks and other secure sites are being hacked into everyday. I have since changed my password but if I don't think this is going to make much difference to a potential hacker.Ivygohnair 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some Background to the above

Through a google search I found out in late december 06 that someone had hacked into my wikipedia account and used my user name to put Chandran Nair on the National Poet's list as National poet of Singapore. This was supposed to have been done in October 06 around the time when I had first stumbled onto wikipedia and decided to be an editor as I found that the older Singaporean writers were not well represented in the Singapore literature section. Being a newbie, I didn't even know how to sign in properly then, or consult history pages etc. It defies common logic that I would then even know that a List of national poets (which btw is a silly list and should be discontinued) existed in wikipedia and it should be also noted that I was the one who brought this up (when google started picking it up) in the first place! I immediately rectified the matter and removed the name from the list.Ivygohnair 14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the hacker also used my user account then to put my hubby's name on the List of English poets (I suppose to make it more believable that I was behind it all) which I also rectified. Since google picked this up only in december, it is logical to conclude that the hacking was done in december (after I had ruffled a few feathers on Wikipedia) and back- dated to October.Ivygohnair 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One man jury on Singapore poets

Speaking entirely objectively and to the best of my knowledge, Goh Sin Tub is more historically significant to the development of Singaporean literature, and hence his article is more important to the Singaporean WikiProject. Nonetheless, the importance evaluation system on the template is, like the rest of Wikipedia, freely editable by anyone - feel free to change the evaluations if you wish, but keep in mind that edits on Wikipedia are governed by consensus, and any controversial edits you make can and will be disputed by other editors. -ryand 16:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryan D thinks that Goh Sin Tub should be rated of mi-importance and start class while Goh Poh Seng, Lee Tzu Pheng, Chandran Nair, Robert Yeo and Malayalam Novelist, VRG Pillai should be rated of low importance and stub class. These ratings are done by a group of very young editors who form the group SGpedians, most of them schoolchildren according to an interview which appeared in the digital section of the Singapore Straits Times recently. In Wikipedia there is no age limit to editorship and groups like SGpedians can rate articles any way they like. Ivygohnair 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on various talk pages

I have had several incidents on talk pages with assessment tags from the SGpedians' noticeboard brought to my attention. This is a reminder that you should be civil when dealing with disputes. Do not discredit other users because of their age solely because you don't agree with that group's article assessments, as you did here, here, here, and other places - there is no strict age limit for editors here. Also, Edit warring over the tags is not allowed, and may put you in danger of violation the three-revert rule. Different groups are allowed to have different assessments of articles for varying reasons. --Coredesat 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Your comments on various talk pages

I couldn't agree more that age is not a problem in wikipidedia edition according to present wikipedia rules. It is not being uncivil however to the young editors to bring their ages up for the understanding of people who do stumble upon the talk pages of established Singaporean poets/writers, for them to form their own opinions of the ratings by these young editors. This I think is definitely in the true spirit of freedom and trust of Wikipedia. BTW for the infomation of people who stumble upon this talk page, a recent "scandal" reported in the international media revealed that an admin who had been very active on Wikipedia and who claimed to be a university lecturer with a PH D was actually just a college undergraduate who relied heavily on the book "Catholicism for Dummies" for his edits and arbitration. The admin who was outed by the New Yorker has since withdrawn his editorship of Wikipedia, but not before he has fooled (and abused the trust of)so many other "honest" editors for so many years. As I said before, this is the Nature of the Beast: Let the buyer (editor) beware. Please don't accuse me of being uncivil here as I am criticising nobody in particular by bringing this case up. I just want to draw attention to the pitfalls of being Time Magazine's "persons of the year" and getting involved with Web 2.0! Ivygohnair 11:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You can't use things like the Essjay controversy to spread a point of view or try to make a point on talk pages whenever you don't agree with something, because it can be seen as disruption. --Coredesat 22:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the premises of your last argument. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: I read up on this and it refers to 1)propaganda or advocacy, 2)self-promotion and 3)advertising. Mentioning the Essjay case which concerns Wikipedia does not in any way fit into any of the above categories. Besides please remember that this is a USER:Talk page and not a Wiki article or even a talk page of a wiki article. I also read up on point of view and it says "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page". The latter guideline also refers to editing actual articles. Talk pages and sand boxes exist precisely for discussion of varied and relevant points of views, otherwise how can Wikipedia be an experiment in democracy? Ivygohnair 22:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, and WP:NOT can be and has been applied globally (which is why there are sections for the community). WP:NOT#SOAPBOX also does not refer to only those things listed there - any attempt to disrupt (such as mass-posting to talk pages where you don't agree with the assessments) in order to make a point can be seen as soapboxing. This would have easily been solved with one calmer post to the talk page of WP:SGN. --Coredesat 23:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Wikipedia isn't an experiment in democracy, but rather "Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion" (and talk pages are for discussion!). Whether I agree or don't agree with SGpedians' assessments of certain established Singaporean writers and poets is of no relevance here. Groups like the SGpedians have the right in Wikipedia to rate articles any way they like; so editors should also have the right to provide verifiable information of the nature of such groups when this information is available. The term "mass posting" is a gross exaggeration here. I posted information on the SGpedians on the talk pages of five established singaporean poets and writers rated as low and stub class by the SGpedians without any explanation. That hardly constitutes "mass posting" and especially as each post was directly relevant to a rating posted by the SGpedians on each individual talk page. I looked up WP:NOT#SOAPBOX again and nothing there supports your arguments on soapboxing being more than the three cases listed. In fact on perusing that link I came across this: "You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages". I rest my case.Ivygohnair 00:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Posting the same message on each page made it look like you were trying to make a point (what's wrong in making a point in a talk page?)(it was the exact same message each time)(No it wasn't, if you look closely, one of the postings is slightly different from the others). You should have taken it up on the noticeboard's talk page or talked to the person(s) who assessed it (I did)rather than speak out about the maturity of the editors in question. --Coredesat 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I did try to discuss the problem with the people concerned. I even posted on User talk:Vsion talk page that I was on vacation and would like a moratorium on the ratings until I returned in March and could take up the discussion properly. This request was not granted and the low ratings restored almost immediately.Ivygohnair 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason your changes were reverted is that you removed the entire {{SG}} template. The purpose of the template, as mentioned multiple times, is to keep Singapore-related articles on Wikipedia organised. - SpLoT // 07:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear SpLot, I don't think I even want to reply to your above comment! BTW you seem to be following my footsteps lately; you even posted on the talk page of the "List of Famous Nairs" on a discussion which was resolved in the last AFD debate of that article. Why don't you come for tea at our condo in Singapore when we next return to Singapore in summer. We should really get to know each other better, don't you think?Ivygohnair 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know why this debate is going on and on. SGpedians should be happy that their low ratings of established Singapore writers/poets remain (at least I wont be the one who will correct or remove them anymore). The young ages of the SGpedians is a verifiable fact and it is not up to me or themselves to judge their own maturity, but rather the rest of the wikipedia community and any reader stumbling upon these talk pages. BTW talking about disruption, aren't you disrupting my talk page by continuing this discusssion? lolIvygohnair 08:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good that you understand that you have no right to impose your judgement of young editors on others, but unfortunately, Wikipedia does not disallow users from contributing based on claims of immaturity, but rather based on policies. I hope your point about Coredesat disrupting your talkpage was a joke. - SpLoT // 07:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey SpLot, I will even do better. Why don't you SGpedians meet at the poolside of my East Coast Condo for your meeting in June/July. I will cook you a fantastic meal and my teenage daughter studying in the UK and her English boyfriend will be there too. You will also be able to meet in person an established singaporean poet/writer or two. In fact I will invite, Kirpal Singh, Robert Yeo, Lee Tzu Pheng, Felix Cheong and even Edwin Thumboo (and of course my hubby, Chandran Nair will be there too). You can invite ryan,User talk:Vsion (whose sense of humour, I do appreciate) and even User:Sengkang whom I have forgiven for vandalising the project page of the AFD on the article "Ivy Goh Nair". A bientot Ivygohnair 12:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget to invite young Terence, who voted against me on my AFD because he had not heard of me before.Ivygohnair 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Invite them all, with no guarantee that any of us will show up. If this is meant as a dare to haunt the respective members of the Singaporean Wikipedian community for assessing the articles of the respective members of the Singaporean art community as 'low', you have my assurance that we will not attend. I refuse to be pushed into a position where my opinions and the state of today's youth can be scrutinized in person. We shall see how the planning for the meetup goes. - SpLoT // 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to be the host for our next Wikipedia meetup. I am a coordinator of the Singapore meetups and we shall see what SGpedians' want based on consensus. If you are doing this with a purpose in mind, I can guarantee you that none of us will appear at your condo's poolside. BTW, I did not !vote in your AFD and I just made a comment at WT:SG!. Terence 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, sorry I forgot. Unfortunately the admin used your comment as the vote that closed the debate even though the article was already withdrawn by the creators. Ah Wikipedia!Ivygohnair 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't be so suspicious. I thought only oldies like us are paranoid. I do not use "la langue de bois" (forked tongue); I really mean it when I said I have accepted that SGpedians can rate articles any way they like and whether I agree with them or not is not relevant here. We don't even have to discuss the ratings at the Mtg if your don't wish to. Tell you what, I will post on the SGpedians notice board an invitation in June and we will see if anyone is interested then.Ivygohnair 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything can do. Once again, its all based on consensus. Terence 14:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's hard not to be, especially when you persist on inviting specific members of the Singaporean art community. - SpLoT // 14:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should put all this bad blood behind us and start on a new footing. I am sincere about June Meetup. I won't invite the writers and poets if you find that intimidating. See you all in June/July then Ivygohnair 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to User:SpLot

Hey, please look up Wikipedia rules, users are allowed to delete comments from their own User and User talk pages, especially when these comments are both dated and not relevant anymore!Ivygohnair 12:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the following. - SpLoT // 07:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline and not set in stone. Some comments should be deleted rather than archived; and remember that even deleted comments are consultable in the "history" section. You see, SpLot, you really should develop a better way of discussion using logic and common sense rather that just quoting rules and guidelines per se. In fact I read somewhere in Wikipedia guidelines that this type of posting is to be discouraged. We really should meet up in summerIvygohnair 13:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then please help me to see the logic and common sense in your reasoning that RyanD's reply to your queries is no longer relevant to your contributions. - SpLoT // 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

These comments are dated(early jan)and do not fit into the organisation of my talk page. Ryan-D replied to two comments I made in the SGpedians Notice Board. Yes, SpLot, I did post more than once on this Notice board, though some of you think I ignore the SGpedians. If you wish, you may put Ryan-D's two comments on the Notice Board (but please do so in the relevant sections) to be archived or not. This will be far more logical and helpful to readers who will then know what the comments are all about. We really should meet upIvygohnair 13:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of us think what? Create a subpage if you want to make your page more organised. - SpLoT // 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will have to think about it and figure out how to create a sub-page. Don't laugh when you are over sixty it's not so easy to learn to do new tricks. LolIvygohnair 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it particularly strange that you ignore your wish to refer Wikipedians to this very page for more information about the discussion: "Wikipedians who wish to follow the full discussion of the debate on Ivy Goh Nair should see also Talk:IvygohnairIvygohnair 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)" I'm sure your subpage or archive will work out just fine. - SpLoT // 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You should be happy to know that Ryan D's comments which you have just restored even before the ink on our discussion has dried will now remain on my talk page. Thanks for taking such a great interest on my talk pageIvygohnair 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You should be happy that you have the opportunity to reply to RyanD's points, rather than deleting them from plain view. For the record, there wasn't much discussion, only a clarification of "logic and common sense". - SpLoT // 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey,for once I am in agreement with you! lolIvygohnair 16:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

There are times when I feel like giving up here — then I get a message like yours, and change my mind for a while. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, do hang in there! I think people like us are grossly outnumbered by adolescents and school children in Wikipeda.Ivygohnair 13:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I have commented at the Talk page of the proposal, but by now it's probably buried in an archive. I suspect that we're in agreement. I think that it's all hysterical nonsense; given that Wikipedia policy is that credentials, qualifications, etc., are irrelevant to editing, and should play no part in content disagreements, there's no point at all in imposing any new policy of this kind, much less a ban. As I pointed out, it's much more common to have editors insisting that their uncited edits be allowed because they live in a place, or know the person, or have been to the school, etc... perhaps we should insist that editors say nothing about where they're from, who they know, where they work or were educated, etc. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that we don't agree after all. Never mind; I hope that we can disagree amicably. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can. You are one of the first sympathetic editors I encountered in the 6 months I have been here and for that you will always be a wee bit special. I am not at all dogmatic even though I do have strong views about things and like to express them loudly. It's been a bit hellish (something like a virtual Clock Work Orange scenario) for me but I think I am finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. It was in the end worth hanging in there and that is my advice to you and to people like Ergo Ego below.Ivygohnair 15:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hear Hear,

IMHO:

Brilliant children without any common sense or semblance of wisdom, are the cause of most of my problems with this site(Wikipedia,) and will have the effect, of destroying the very essence of this encyclopedia. "Consensus" does not work in a state where the primary source of power stems from, or is derived from, gangs of adolescent and immature power mongers. The vexatious and vitriolic nature of many of the administrators here, leads me to believe that the end result will be the deletion of all good things accompanied by the maintenance of all things sterile and meaningless to the human condition on earth. An encyclopedia without any wisdom behind it? Being smart without wisdom can be a very dangerous thing. Jimmy Wales should take the tiller before it is too late. This nightmare could never happen in the real corporate world of any country on earth. Without leadership, this is an experiment that will disintegrate. I fear he will be "thrown out with the bath water." The insanity happening here is too much like MySpace, albeit here, the kids can change everything at will. Or, a few of them can have any of us deleted or banned by "consensus." At least at MySpace the vandals cannot try to delete you and /or change your truth. ErgoEgo 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Thanks

for dropping by. Actually the youngsters can really be a pain in the behind but I think it's better then if they were out in the streets taking drugs or exhibiting chav like behaviour :-)Ivygohnair 21:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What a lovely portrait! I've clicked through your page twice, and both times paused to admire it. As you are enjoying your first cup of the morning, I'm enjoying my last glass of the evening. Derex 10:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bonne Nuit then or shall I say "bon soir". Hang in there, we are definitely in the minority. That portrait, unfortunately was painted years ago by my hubby. You have to add many wrinkles to it today. BTW what does IMHO mean, do you know?Ivygohnair 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Then I'm sure you look wise as well as beautiful today. I understand it to mean "in my humble opinion", though opinions thus described are seldom actually very humble. Derex 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Thanks for all your constructive participation in the post-Essjay credentials discussion. If nothing else, I'm discovering some of the more mature and considered thinkers on the site through this debate - not that I want to denigrate anyone who gives time and energy to this very good cause, but still ... I'm sorry to see, looking higher up your page, that you've copped a fair bit of flack in your time here.

If I can ever help you, with my still-imperfect knowledge of how things work here and my much-constrained abilities as an admin, let me know. Metamagician3000 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Merci, I appreciate what you are trying to do in the post-essjay credentials debate even though at times it seems an uphill battle. Thanks againIvygohnair 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Madam, You could add This user is a doting wife. to the list on your userpage, as is evident from your dedicated contribution to Chandran Nair. I wish there were a dedicated wife's barnstar. No offence meant. :-) Btw, IMHO is "in my humble opinion". See IMHO

Thank's, IMHO, User: Derex already told me; see above. He also pointed out that people who use that are not always "humble" lol. I will think about the doting wife remark.Ivygohnair 10:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW Please call me Ivy, madam is so formalIvygohnair 10:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Re Chandran Nair, do you know that when I edited him together with 5 other Singaporean established writers/poets, it was a very simple article only slightly longer that the other five. But SGpedians kept putting stubs notices and comments like "citations" please (it was almost a continuous barrage of attacks), so each time, I added more to the article until it became what it is today (IMHO a very good, well-sourced article). I have asked (when I was back in Singapore in Feb) some of the other writers/poets, whose profiles I have created to send me more info so that I could build up their profiles too. I am still waiting for their input.Ivygohnair 10:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to substantiate your claim to a 'continuous barrage of attacks'? - SpLoT // 10:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

nopeIvygohnair 10:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Then remove it. - SpLoT // 10:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Help IMHO, how do I put a cancellation line on this phrase?Ivygohnair 10:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

<s>Struck out text here.</s> - SpLoT // 10:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup!Ivygohnair 10:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Do you mind if I move your credential scans to User:Ivygohnair/credentials? I'd like to add that as an example in the proposal, and it's easiest if we have a standard placemnent. Also, do you mind having a userbox posted somewhere on the page, along the lines of the one User:Metamagician3000 has? Derex 12:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

no problem. You can move my credentials. I will try with the Userbox. I suppose I can just copy paste it. Isn't it very late now down under? Are we finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel? lol lol lolIvygohnair 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some recommendations

I've reviewed the concerns raised by all sides at Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board, and I have some things to say:

  1. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so anyone may assess an article to determine whether it is under the scope of a particular WikiProject, and members of that project can determine what assessment rating to give it. The creator of an article doesn't get any extra say or input, and doesn't necessarily have a right to be informed of the assessment - that editor doesn't own the article. Please see Chacor's comments on the talk page.
  2. You should be less forceful when discussing the assessments given by various projects on articles you've written, especially the one on Chandran Nair, as there is a serious conflict of interest problem here (after all, he's your husband) - please take a look at that guideline.
  3. Do not remove or change assessments on articles you have written, whether you agree with them or not. This is considered vandalism and can result in a block.
  4. If you have questions about an assessment, just ask the editor who assessed it - don't post long speeches claiming that "Singapore will tarnish its reputation" because of one person's (or a few people's) assessments of a few articles on Wikipedia.

Please keep these things in mind, or you may either have a request for comment opened against you in regards to your conduct, or you may be blocked temporarily.

Also, you might want to tag Image:Wikichan.jpg for speedy deletion ({{db-author}}), because it's orphaned and a duplicate of the image on the Chandran Nair article. --Coredesat 03:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your warnings Coredesat. I will take note of them and try to to not violate any WP rules and give you cause to sanction me. However forcefulness of expression is something part and parcel of my nature and also perhaps not such a bad point on talk pages as long as one remains civil and avoid personal attacks. I created Chandran Nair who is an established poet together with five other Singaporean writers and poets as I felt that older Singaporean poets were not well represented on WP when I first stumbled upon the site. I have also edited other relevant Singapore Literature topics in the short time I have been editing for Wikipedia. You have my permission to tag the orphan image for deletion as I did not succeed in doing it just now (thanks). I have no intention of changing any assessments you mention, in fact this is one of the main points of my argument on the SGpedian Notice Board, that such actions will lead to edit wars and 3R violations. I should be allowed the freedom to discuss any topic I want without sanction on the SGpedians Notice Board as I am now part of the SGpedians. I also didn't post any long speeches. Cheers.Ivygohnair 04:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also I wonder whether you are not possibily violating WPNPOV as an admin yourself about the Singapore Image remark.:-) Are you a Singaporean? Maybe it should be left to SGpedians to debate my remark. CheersIvygohnair 04:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh... anyone is free to comment about anything. To comment that "Maybe it should be left to SGpedians to debate my remark." is the very thing that is against wiki. Anyway, to answer your post at the SG talk page:
Just a thought, but if he's talked to you before about this "on the request of SGpedians", it's possible he has the SG page watched and saw the discussion, and hence decided to remind you. – Chacor 05:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read WP:NPOV, which only applies to content, not editors. - SpLoT // 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, anyone is free to comment on anything but I was pointing to the fact that I was being admonished by a non-Singaporean on a Singaporean topic.Ivygohnair 05:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Which there is no policy against. Administrators are chosen by the community to do difficult tasks. These include warning users against (knowingly or not) violating policy. – Chacor 05:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Apply logic and common sense when there is no policy :-)Ivygohnair 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Logic and common sense does not say that non-Singaporeans cannot or should not handle Singaporean matters. This really isn't worth arguing over. But I think that if this was posted to the admin noticeboard, there would definitely not be a welcome attitude towards your idea. – Chacor 05:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm I don't know. Are Admins supposed to regulate what users can say about any topic, as long as this is done in a civil way and does not violate WP rules? Perhaps I was barking up the wrong tree talking about Singapore matters. Thanks Chacor.Ivygohnair 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to some extent, yes. They don't have any extra say in discussions, but they are here to make sure people stay within policy. So as long as they themselves stay within policy, it's within their rights to ask people to cut back on the incivility, and whatnot, regardless of the topic. That's why admins who're involved in content disputes normally go to the admin board to ask uninvolved admins to take a look. Therefore it's probably the opposite, more often admins who don't have a good knowledge of the content are called in, but they're normally there to look at the behavioural side of things. Regarding Core's suggestion of your husband's article, I'd advise you to heed his advice and just cut back on editing it, before you get accused of a conflict of interest. And, just FYI, you should probably indent your replies (just add a colon, or as many as needed, to the front of your comment). Cheers, – Chacor 05:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Only to some extent ie when rules are violated. Admins have been conferred extra powers by the community, it is all the more important that they exercise these powers judiciously.Ivygohnair 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And, of course, to accuse an admin of not doing so is quite severe ;) and normally those discussions end up at the admin board. Usually it results in the admin being admonished (or if it's a consistent pattern, sent to arbitration or mediation), or direct opposite, the complainant gets blocked for just being a dick. :P Basically, one would need a lot of evidence to prove any such accusation, otherwise they would probably end up being ignored as a "troll" (which normally happens), or blocked for failing to AGF/respect CIV. – Chacor 06:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh good grief, a great many admins don't exercise their powers judiciously, or haven't you been paying attention lately? The sort of admins who would, as you suggest, block solid editors like Ivy for criticizing an admin are the sort we don't need. Such a thing is an excellent example of injudicious exercise of powers, and I trust you would never do such a thing if you became an admin again, Chacor. The better sort of admins are of the stock of saints, and I salute them. Derex 08:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh good grief, another discussion for the admin noticeboard! Are you seriously suggesting that Chacor is unaware of admin matters? Pray check his contributions to see how frequently he comments on incidents. On another note, are you also accusing Coredesat of abusing his powers and categorizing him as 'the sort we don't need'? Do you even know why Ivy was blocked previously? You too, Derex, should watch your civility. - SpLoT // 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Splotch, I don't believe I said any such thing. But it certainly sprang easily enough to your mind, and now you've gone and made the implication yourself. I advise you not to criticize admins in that fashion lest you find yourelf blocked. And yes, I know very well who Chacor is. Derex 09:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
How dare you accuse me of criticizing admins, when it is clear that you are guilty of it. Quit calling the kettle black. - SpLoT // 09:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't man, it looked like a criticism to me. At least you certainly thought of a criticism, and that's almost as bad. Thought crime does not go unpunished here at wikipedia. Probably best that you just drop it, because pretty soon you won't be able to stop thinking about it, and then you'll start believing it, and then you'll actually do it. Yes, that's right, you'll end up actually criticizing an admin if you don't turn off your computer right now. Beware! Derex 09:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You are claiming that 'a great many admins don't exercise their powers judiciously'. So you tell me, who is criticizing admins? - SpLoT // 09:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The talk page of another user is not the right place to argue. Derex, stop baiting SpLoT. SpLoT, stop replying. And regarding your first assertion, Derex, I was referring to the admins who block anon IPs for popping up from nowhere and making stupid claims. – Chacor 10:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Apologies to Ivy. No harm intended. - SpLoT // 10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can be as tenacious as Worldtraveller,:-) but I don't think I will let it degenerate to that. Nice chatting with you Chacor, at least I know there are some adults in the SGpedians community, (like Jack Lee as well). Try to come to the July 1st Meetup if consensus is reached to have it at my Condo.Ivygohnair 06:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivy, your repeated reminders that certain editors are 'adults' and others are 'teenagers' are not needed. Your essays regarding the mindset and maturity of teenagers are also out of place. - SpLoT // 09:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ivy asked me for another opinion. I had a look at the Chandran Nair article, where some of the problem seems to be, and have commnented at length there as well as doing some refactoring of the talk page. I think all the people involved are good users and I hope no one takes umbrage at anything I said. I know very little (well, nothing) about the actual matters that form the underlying content dispute but I think I can see reasons for both sides to have a bit of a think about it all. I won't look any further into the background for now. If anyone wants to discuss my comments or other aspects with me, feel free to do so. Metamagician3000 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments were balanced and fair. Regarding the last paragraph please look at Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board where it has been clarified how the ratings were done and by whom.Ivygohnair 06:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on Derex's page

I was checking his page for another purpose when I saw your comments. Please don't be dispirited. As you say, you made some newbie mistakes, but nothing that should detract from your status as a good and enthusiastic contributor. As Derex said, just take it easy for a few days. Maybe things will then seem a bit less grim here. It can get frustrating, I know, but that's inevitable when we have such a vast range of people involved.

All the best,

Metamagician3000 10:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Abandoned Articles

Welcome to the project! The best way to start (and to help) is to "claim" a block of ten articles, and work on updating them. The instructions on the main page of the project are pretty complete (please don't be scared off by the number of steps; this is just because of the completeness). If you're unfamiliar with disambiguation pages, do read (at least, skim) the cited pages, to get an idea of what this type of page should look like, since a majority of the "abandoned articles" are in fact disambigutions.

If you'd like, I'd be happy to give you feedback on your edits - say, after you've done the first half of a block of ten articles. And if you have any questions, please drop me a note; I'll be happy to offer advice. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for the picture — it looks as though Spring is about as far along for you as for us here in Oxfordshire. Your forsythia is looking good. If the weather's good tomorrow, I'll take a photo here and reciprocate. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How to sign up as a translator/proofreader

Hello, Ivygohnair, thank you for offering your time to translate articles from French to English. I would suggest that you sign up as a translator. Please consult Wikipedia:Translation#How to sign up as a translator/proofreader for instructions. If you want to start right away, consult Category:Translation_Request/fr for articles that to be translated.  Andreas  (T) 14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Am on vacation now. Will sign up in early august. Ivygohnair 00:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nairs

I've replied on my talk page. --ROGER TALK 10:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And again. --ROGER TALK 11:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy 1st edit day

Happy First Edit Day, Ivygohnair, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

NHRHS2010 Talk 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007 newsletter for WikiProject Abandoned Articles

[edit] Welcome

The WikiProject welcomes two new members in the past three months:

[edit] Progress

The WikiProject is now halfway done, numerically, with the 1000 articles identified in December 2006. The first (oldest) 500 articles have been claimed, reviewed, and (when needed, which was almost all cases) improved. Moreover, given the passage of time, many of articles 501 through 1000 have been worked on by other editors (it's ten months since that list was generated). So reviewing the second half of the 1000 articles should be easier.

[edit] A slightly different approach

Section 6 (articles 501 through 600 on the list) has been organized differently than the previous five sections. First, blocks are (roughly) five articles each, rather than 10, making it easier for you to claim and finish a block. Second, perhaps more importantly, each block consists of similar pages; if you're interested in fixing disambiguation pages, there are blocks of those; if you're interested in articles (which is what the project originally started out being), there are blocks of those; and there is one block of lists and one of redirects (mostly redirects to articles). So, fewer surprises this time when you claim a block.

In addition, since the project now has 25 active members (though some are likely inactive), having more blocks will make it easier to spread the editing around.

[edit] Inactivating your membership

If you received this newsletter on your user talk page and don't want to receive such postings in the future, please move your name, in the participants section of the WikiProject, to the "Inactive" subsection.

[edit] About this newsletter

This newsletter is being delivered by Anibot; it was written by John Broughton. Please post any comments about it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abandoned Articles, in a section separate from the newsletter itself.
Delivered by Anibot 00:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:VRGPillai.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VRGPillai.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have taken the necessary action. Ivygohnair (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)