User talk:Gordonemery

Hadrian’s Wall

Hello, I'm Seasider53. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hadrian's Wall were undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thanks. Seasider53 (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi I'm Gordonemery. Last time someone took it off because I didn't give refs. This time I gave refs to George Neilson's book on the vallum and one of T C Bell's papers. Unfortunately most of the entry on Wikipedia still thinks that the Vallum is a defence whereas GN gave the reasons for it not being so. I gave refs to the works showing that the Vallum was cut before the Wall and that it was a canal for carrying the wall materials. No good reason for removing this was given. Please ensure that you leave this material on in future. Unfortunately I have had two strokes which meant it took a long time to relearn how to add to Wiki and it is demoralising if someone removes things without reading them or checking the information before doing so. Gordonemery (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Reasons have been given. Further such removals will be treated as vandalism. Seasider53 (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I cannot understand why anyone would think that the additions did not appear constructive. Per Lineum Valli was written after it was walked in 1893 and this man walked 50 miles of it. His comments are exceptionally constructive. Barbara Heywood's digs confirmed the vallum built before the wall and T C Bells discovery that it was a canal to carry the materials is the only possible reason for the vallum. He has done bi-annual exhibitions for 10 years but has now had a stroke and can do no more. To not put this information on Wikipedia would be crazy. Gordonemery (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Lineam Valli was written over a century ago, and no academic since then has ever taken seriously the speculations about the Vallum being a canal. TC Bell's self-published works have no academic credibility and are not a suitable source for Wikipedia - or for any other version of reality. I wish you the best for your recovery. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if you read my quotes from Per Liniam Valli you might reconsider your comments if not your editing. To my knowledge no one else has walked 50 miles of the Vallum and noticed that it could not be a defence after Neilson until Bell looked at it. I was as shocked as you when I first read his view but soon realised that it was the only possible answer and my research with LiDAR backed up Bell's plans. I would be happy to send you, by email, the photos (copyright)for research purposes. However, if you are just going to quote the usual repetition with no evidence whatsoever I see no point in posting evidence that you are going to dismiss out of hand and see little point in wikipedia if all sources and published theories cannot be quoted. If by 'Academia' you mean not being able to view physical evidence I see little that would be academic in the normal meaning of the word. Gordonemery (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. Neither TC Bell's material nor Per Lineam Valli are acceptable. Nor are our own interpretations. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Whilst I can see why you don't want 'interpretations' and might not want a marine engineer;s work over an archaeologist even if it is correct, Per Lineam Valli questioned why the dated idea of the Value being a defence and gave the evidence in the longest survey of the Vallum. can you explain why it is unacceptable when theories of a defence predated it. Gordonemery (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

We are trying to give an account of the modern academic understanding of the Vallum. If you can produce credible engineering publications describing how it could be a canal, then we could refer to them. As far as I know, there are no such reports, nor any prospect of them. We don't need to include every available speculation. Per Lineam Valli from 130 years ago may be a mildly-interesting part of the history of thought about the Vallum, but, without a strong editorial consensus to include it, it lacks encyclopedic importance. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi the evidence I have is copyright, an archaeology dig photo from Northumberlsnd, photos from Bell, LiDAR photos. I can email them to you to look at for research purposes. The other clear indications are from Per Lineum Valli - all the quotes which I put on Wiki which you removed. These are factual observations made in 1890's and extremely relevant as Neilson walked 50 miles of it. Those things aren't theories they are observations published. Let me email them all to you for you to consider whether they are relevant. Unfortunately modern archaeological theory is based on pre Neilson ideas. Gordonemery (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS to remind yourself of why the stuff you mention isn't acceptable on Wiki. And no, current opinion doesn't hold that the Vallum is a defensive structure, see Bidwell, P. T. (2005). "The System of Obstacles on Hadrian’s Wall: Their Extent, Date and Purpose". Arbeia Journal 8: 53–76. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

WP-RS states 'making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered'. Again, Per Lineum Valli was published and detailed. The view that the Vallum, previously known as Agricola's Ditch is a canal s surely significant. Meanwhile where can I gat the mag you reference. Also will you look at the photos some from archaeologists, some with a geologist, LiDAR etc. Gordonemery (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If you wish to continue this conversation, please do so on a more appropriate talk page, probably Vallum (Hadrian's Wall). Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Rather than start again please just look at my message. I can then continue the conversation elsewhere but would prefer to send you the evidence and published items so that you can see for yourself. Gordonemery (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The appropriate place to review published evidence is on Talk:Vallum (Hadrian's Wall). Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to review unpublished work. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I cannot put the copyright photos from the Archaeology Dept on the internet. I could let you see them as research. Can I put non-copyright photos on talk? Gordonemery (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not unless you own the copyright. My part in the conversation on this page is now finished, please do not try to continue it anywhere but a suitable Wikipedia talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

History of penicillin - original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to History of penicillin, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, All of these alterations are a summary of the book on Glaxo. As the whole book is based on research on Glaxo Archives etc and are factual matters that happened at Glaxo, and as this is the only book of its kind, written as a paper by W Bryan Emery for Glaxo archives and only released last year. I can only quote the book and reference it. It is the only extant source on all this information. I have summarised 20 pages down to a few paragraphs. Please revert it as I wish to update the section on deep fermentation to include the British deep fermentation plants at Barnard Castle and Ulverston and cannot do this if every time I put in information someone is going to delete it . I would happily provide you with a digital copy of the book if you do not understand this.

Gordon Emery Gordonemery (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. This book is one published by you, and whose author shares your surname, so I presume a family member. That makes this original research - the only source of the information you put on Wikipedia, is a book you published. The appropriate way to do this would be to cite the original sources you/your author used when writing the book.

But regardless of that, the material is simply outside the scope of the page. Even if cited properly, it should not be there, because it delves far too deep into minutiae. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. My father wrote this for Glaxo archives. He was the person who introduced the deep fermentation process used by Glaxo, a combination of processes by Merck and Squibb. He had access to Glaxo archives for a year in 1978. He did not keep a copy but, although previously embargoed for the public, it was released, last year, by the new archivist as they could not prove it was not W Bryan Emery's copyright. To quote memos would obviously be impossible as he had all the Glaxo memos for ten plus years to work from as well as being the last member of the team still alive. He was the pa to the managing director then the Development director for Glaxo Group. Yes, the book is published by me as I am now the copyright holder. I have published it unchanged except for one word in the wrong tense and update of a few chemical names.

Some of the info about Glaxo on the Wiki page, for example about Stratford was wrong so I made the correction. This is certainly not minutiae as it is reduced to a few paragraphs from 20 pages. As Glaxo was the main penicillin producer for the war years this is a tiny amount of information merely mentioning the new factories etc., an important part of the history of this lifesaving mould. Glaxo asked my father to research and write it for their archives as there was no-one except him alive from the original team. He was the first General Manager of Glaxo, Ulverston. His obituary in the Glaxo magazine was near an article stating that Glaxo, in the 65 years since he Ulverston was opened had saved 65 million lives and yet you think a few paragraphs is too much to say!! As I stated I would happily send you his book and then you can decide how much information is relevant to the formative years of penicillin production in the world.

Please revert the article or read the refs I gave or his book before you make unqualified changes. Gordonemery (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Penicillin. Graham87 (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not promoting or advertising. I am giving a source as people keep deleting this important historical information from the text.

W Bryan Emery recorded all the research on this subject at Glaxo for their archives, he was the only one alive on the team and Glaxo gave him access to all the memos etc over these years. This is the only complete record. Published the book and have supplied it free to libraries, the CSI etc. Before you make statements you should read the book which I will happily supply to you FOC. 978. He did not keep a copy but, although previously embargoed for the public, it was released, last year, by the new archivist as they could not prove it was not W Bryan Emery's copyright. To quote memos would obviously be impossible as he had all the Glaxo memos for ten plus years to work from as well as being the last member of the team still alive. He was the pa to the managing director then the Development director for Glaxo Group. Yes, the book is published by me as I am now the copyright holder. I have published it unchanged except for one word in the wrong tense and update of a few chemical names.

Some of the info about Glaxo on the Wiki page, for example about Stratford was wrong so I made the correction. This is certainly not minutiae as it is reduced to a few paragraphs from 20 pages. As Glaxo was the main penicillin producer for the war years this is a tiny amount of information merely mentioning the new factories etc., an important part of the history of this lifesaving mould. Glaxo asked my father to research and write it for their archives as there was no-one except him alive from the original team. He was the first General Manager of Glaxo, Ulverston. His obituary in the Glaxo magazine was near an article stating that Glaxo, in the 65 years since he Ulverston was opened had saved 65 million lives and yet you think a few paragraphs is too much to say!! As I stated I would happily send you his book and then you can decide how much information is relevant to the formative years of penicillin production in the world. Gordonemery (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see the plain and simplie guide to conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Adding a work you've had a hand in publishing to a page certainly fits that definition. Graham87 (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is an important historical document of work done in Britain during the war years. are you suggesting that, for example, the BBC news is promoting themselves when they make factual reports. Gordonemery (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Graham87 If I supply the book to you then you can decide whether to add it to the reading list and what, if anything, should be added to Wikipedia. Surely this will get over your objections. Gordonemery (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Gordonemery, you are trying to include details from a book published by yourself and written by your father. If it offered material for the improvement of an encyclopedia (which by editorial consensus it doesn't so far), and has been published in a form acceptable to policy (which it may have been, but I'm not sure), and if your father had been an established academic expert in the field (which I have no reason to suppose), we could, by consensus, use the book. As it is, this is another argument that is best abandoned, to avoid further waste of time. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

If you look up W B Emery, Glaxo you should find several papers published by him. He was, of course, a published academic in his field. I can supply a list with online references to several of his papers on penicillin etc if you wish. He set up the processes for Penicillin, B12, Vitamin A and Streptomycin at Glaxo Ulverston as the first General Manager.

Before he retired he was PA to the Managing Director and then Development Director of Glaxo Group.

Example papers https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1258367/pdf/biochemj00957-0104.pdf

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(45)90180-2/fulltext

https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article-abstract/52/3/389/47744/B12-vitamins-cobalamins-1-Vitamins-B12c-and-B12d?redirectedFrom=fulltext Gordonemery (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I can supply a more detailed list of his early papers or a copy of the book. Contact me with your address on my website www.gordonemery.co.uk Gordonemery (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This is probably enough to establish him as an expert on the chemistry of liver extracts / vitamin B12, and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=author%3A%22W.+B.+Emery%22+penicillin&btnG= does give his name as a co-author of two papers on the analysis of penicillin. Can you produce anything on his expertise in penicillin production? I suggest that you save yourself the trouble, because, as I adumbrate above, you are very unlikely to achieve a consensus that the material that you have provided so far is worth including in an encyclopedia. If you can supply an internet link to the complete text of the book, likely to be maintained for the foreseeable future, thus self-publishing it according to policy, I might possibly support its inclusion in a list of further reading. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

Graham87 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that you can't understand that you've been promoting work you're strongly associated with means that you should not be editing this encyclopedia. Your opinion on your own edits doesn't matter here. I've removed access to your talk page so you can't use it to write more useless content. Consider yourself lucky that I let you off with a warning initially. Graham87 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)