User talk:John.gilliver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilliver

Would you please also delete Gillivery as per nomination? Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 02:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! The article has been deleted. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the article, AP, the redirect. You deleted "Gilliver", now please delete Gillivery. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 05:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was showing as deleted on my screen. Have now refreshed and confirmed that this has been deleted. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  05:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 05:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this comment - it isn't very obvious where the right place is; I would have used "the article's discussion page" as suggested in the deletion log, but since it's been deleted, that was rather difficult! Email me if you can point me better.) Although I, J. P. Gilliver (after whom the two terms were named), entered the article(s), I was only entering a description of how the terms are actually used. (It wasn't an attack on me!) I did my best to write it objectively, which is why maybe someone thought it was a personal attack on me. If you do a Google Groups advanced search (I suggest for Gillivery/gillivery rather than gilliver), you'll find it used back to 1998, with an early user being Penny Mayes. (Some of the early users did put an upper case G.) 20.133.0.14 14:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)John dot (guess) at baesystems.com

Hello, John Gilliver! Don't forget to sign in when you are contributing to other users' Talk pages, it makes it much easier to talk back. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A good place for this article to appear might be [wiktionary:Main_Page Wiktionary]. Before this can be done, the term should be entered in to something like Urbandictionary or another online dictionary of slang and/or Internet idioms, with the appropriate citations. Asking me to search for instances of usage on Google Groups shows the basic deficiency of the article - a researcher should be able to have this information at their fingertips if the article is well-constructed. Regards,  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have copies of the two entries (gilliver and gillivery) they could send me? I unfortunately did not keep them, and would like to submit them in the approved manner this time (Wiktionary, orbandictionary, whatever).