User talk:TheBilly/January 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Mesogastropoda stubs

Hi TheBilly, Thank for explaining that to me, I did not know that yet. And thanks for your assistance, but, I am not sure Project Gastropod has agreed to switch those stubs over right now. The taxon "Mesogastropoda" is certainly outdated (the roughly 800 mesogastropod stubs were created by PolBot from outdated source material so the taxoboxes in every one of those stub articles are also outdated). Unfortunately gastropod taxonomy is still extremely actively in flux right now, with new papers coming out every year or so, although I believe most likely our newer stub category "Sorbeoconcha" should hopefully remain somewhat stable for a while. If you have the time maybe you can read the discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Gastropods entitled "So-called Mesogastropod stubs". I asked the person who started Project Gastropod and who has done most of the work, JoJan says on his talk page, "These stubs and this category was auto-generated by PolBot. Several mistakes were made. First : the bot used the outdated taxonomy in the databases that were dumpied into wikipedia. Secondly, several common names are misspelled and proper names begin with a small letter. I've changed all this for the family Hydrobiidae, but there are still more than 800 stubs left. A new bot may do more harm than good. I think it will all have to be done manually. JoJan (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)." What do you think? Would the switch likely make things worse in some way? Invertzoo (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

RunMovies

Sorry Billy, but RunMovies at www.runmovies.be is a bilingual (French and English) site. I don’t think these where inappropriate external links and are not meant for advertising or promotion. The articles were originally published in the quarterly magazine SOUNDTRACK which had a lengthy publication run from 1975 until 2002, and CinemaScore 1982-1987 (the Holy Grail film music publication). Those articles are copyrighted and can not be added to the Wikipedia, but could be of interest for any film or film music buff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Quakenbush (talk • contribs)

Well, I wasn't able to get any pages on the site to load. Viewing the google cache of the homepage, I saw only non-English content (add to that, that the site is on the Belgian TLD). Since..
  1. Your account is newly registered
  2. You are the first person to link to this domain
  3. All of your edits involve adding links to this domain
It seemed likely to me that this was merely promotion of your website. Please note that, per WP:EXT, you should not add links to a site you're affiliated with even if the content is relevant (see: conflicts of interest)
You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included,
please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it.
I only want to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. I did not remove your links out of spite, or anything of that sort, I merely judged that your links seemed highly likely to be added in an inappropriate manner - TheBilly (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

speeding old article

To the best of my knowledge there is no policy against speeding an old article. Nevertheless speeding is never required and alternate form of deletion are always permitted. In the case of Cory Adams I felt uncomfortable speedily deleting an article over 2 years old, even if it has been mostly abandoned. Whenever any "reasonable doubt exists" speeding is not appropriate and it seems to me that any article so old creates a reasonable doubt even if does not state any reason for notability. I felt that a prod (which is almost certain to pass - no one seems to look at the article) would be an easier, less controversial way to delete it. I never intended to imply that anything you did was incorrect or that you misunderstood anything about the policies and guidelines. Jon513 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

update: User:Davewild removed the speedy with the comment "removed speedy - appearing in several features is enough of an indication of importance to not be speediable", I then PRODDED it. Jon513 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the notice. I'll keep an eye on it and if the PROD is removed I'll submit it to AfD TheBilly (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

9/11 denial

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on 9/11 denial. The reason is:

Looks like an attempt of a neutral article - not an attack page

Please also note that, at the same time I was declining it, so was an other admin. If you think this page should be deleted, please put it up at AfD. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that, as I explained on the first administrator's page, it only takes a few minutes of checking some histories to see that this is a disparaging copy' of an existing page. I know you guys go through a bunch of actions with only cursory glances at content. All "so was another admin" means is that another person overlooked this situation in addition to you, in a hurry to move on. TheBilly (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD Issue

thanks for pointing out. but i have to defend my article. Because i believe in it. Otherways, i wouldn't have wrote it at all...

If nomiation is a place for debate, then i will.

regards...

--Polysynaptic (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you want to defend your article (although it is not "yours" - see WP:OWN), and there's nothing wrong with you presenting the arguments in favor of keeping or merging the article. However, doing this in a combative manner will only work against you. I was merely mentioning that it is not in your best interest to act in this sort of combative manner, and to make personal attacks (such as claiming that voting delete is a crime against humanity). If the issue is that your article seems non-neutral, then you're only further reinforcing that idea with that sort of behavior, and it will only help to get your article deleted, not kept
Also, regarding your comment:
Rather, it would be vandalism deleting it
Disagreements over content are not tantamount to vandalism. Again, you should avoid making these sorts of accusations against peeople, as it neither contributes to the debate nor helps your case TheBilly (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup.

[1] - Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat 11:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Info

I have reverted and replied to the thread you posted on my TP. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 12:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't be replying there (or here on that topic) because I chose not to pursue that conversation after all. It's your talk page, and you can control what comments you keep, but I'm not interested in continuing that conversation after all and retracted my post for that reason. I went ahead and posted any thoughts I had on the article on its talk page instead, as you saw TheBilly (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with definition

What is CamelCase?

This name by the way is just one that came to me in a fit of inspiration, and as a result just felt I had to use it! Also, as I stated to the other guy, so far I've only been in the sandbox, and am just warming up in there until I know all the rules, etiquette, etc.That'sAGreatIdea.I'llStartSHOUTINGAtPeople! (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Camel case is WritingPhrasesLikeThis. Wikipedia has an article explaining it: CamelCase. I'm not strongly opposed to your name, personally, since I rarely have need to type people's names, but there was discussion over at WP:UAA (discussion is now gone. See here: [2]) and the admins there requested that someone ask you nicely to change it . Since nobody had given you a proper explanation, I did :)

Socks

Hello Billy, (you may want to see my comments on the WP:RFPP page), I've protected the article pending further investigation. If he's got ripened socks that are autoconfirmed, ask me and I'll full-protect the page. Anyhow, I recommend that you file a checkuser request to clean out the sock drawer. Good luck, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD

  • Hmmm. Hold on a second. JuJube (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, it might be because I haven't slept, but I just noticed that Computerpro isn't linking to actual article names at all. I assumed they were legit, but as it turns out, they're not. So I'm changing my vote. Sorry about any perceived insult (but I really wasn't insulting you.) JuJube (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The second comment definitely was, the first comment was in my opinion (it relates to your judgement of me, not the merits of the article). For further clarification, consult WP:CIV. It doesn't really matter though, my concern was the AfD debate being derailed into unrelated accusations and I just wanted to nip that in the bud TheBilly (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Note

I am drafting an FAQ here and would appreciate any input or constructive edits you could give on/to it. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


B.S.

The Minor Barnstar
For tirelessly correcting date tags in articles; a truly repetitive and laborious task, but one that is very much appreciated by other editors! MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Oooooh, sweet :) — TheBilly(Talk) 19:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: re: Dark data AfD

I do not agree. Here is my research on the matter: Contribution history for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark_data by TheBilly (talk • contribs • count):

  • this diff
    • An article about a phrase has to be more than a definition otherwise it should be deleted per WP:NOT#DICT, and in this case, WP:NEO
  • this diff
    • Weak keep This term immediately brings to mind another...
  • this diff
    • Here's a reference...

JERRY talk contribs 00:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion, so you weren't asked to agree or disagree. I'm explaining why you are wrong, and asking you to correct your mistake.
She said: "Could you explain why you would consider it a neologism".
I responded: "Because it's a recently coined term not yet in the dictionary" (etc).
This "Joseane" didn't indent her comment, but the comment under hers (mine) is still obviously a reply to it.
There's only one vote from me there. In AfD, we bold our votes. I bolded my vote. I don't see how you can continue to argue otherwise. The only reason you should continue to argue that I voted twice is if you think I'm blatantly lying and trying to deceive you (which would not be assuming good faith). I know how many votes I made because I'm me. — TheBilly(Talk) 02:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You are obviously having difficulty understanding this process, and I do not feel like discussing it with you any further, as you have become slightly uncivil. Please ask other people for assistance if you still want it, as I am ending this thread here. JERRY talk contribs 02:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been uncivil, I've only been blunt. (Sorry, but "Don't call a spade a spade" is an essay, not a guideline). I've said that you're wrong, and told you why you're wrong. The worst I did here is that I called one of your arguments "poor", as you did to mine (however, I did so by arguing that you were guilty of committing a logical fallacy). If that's uncivil, I should be promoted to administrator for it! I'm not interested in "proving you wrong" for the sake of it, I simply asked that you not post negative, factually inaccurate statements about me. I asked that you strike out your incorrect statement, and you are very rudely refusing to give me this simple courtesy. You are obviously having difficulty understanding this process, because I've made it very clear what was a vote and what was not — TheBilly(Talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Let's start over. Hello my name is Felicia. It is nice to make your aquaintance. I've visited your page and I see you are a real person and therefore due respect as an individual. As am I.

I am not trying to aggrevate or diminsh your work. I'm just trying to create verifiable and neutral work on wikipedia. I believe I am doing that for a very, very important work. I would pleased to talk to you about it and explain everything. Perhaps you can do the same. Perhaps, you can even help me. I would welcome that very much.

Thank you and I look forward to your earliest reply.

Felicia J Nainoa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnainoa (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you must mean this Felicia Nainoa, whom IMDB has as the top listing, "Transcendent Man (2008) (filming) (producer) (as Felicia Ptolemy)". Thank you for admitting to your conflict of interest, now I think we can move forward. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have not contributed significantly to this article, I merely have it on my watchlist because it appears to be a film of minor importance and such films are often prone to promotional tone and other issues of non-neutrality. I added the COI notice because of my suspicion that at least one editor had a conflict of interest (some connection to the creators of this film in some way), and because I was not the only person to have this suspicion (as you've seen, another editor expressed this concern). I have no vindictive desire to see you blocked, I merely want to make sure unconstructive behavior is stopped - and admin intervention is an effective means to deal with uncooperative editors making unconstructive (and rule-violating) edits. If this can be worked out simply with your cooperation, then there is no need to go that route.
I'll help you, then, by explaining that there are multiple issues here. Firstly, if you are truely not a producer of this film, then the images you have uploaded appear to be incorrectly credited. They appear to be credited to "Felicia Ptolemy", and released into the public domain. The license reads "I, the copyright holder....", because only the copyright holder to a work can release it into the public domain. Others cannot. If you know that the copyright holder has released these images under a free license, however, you should change the licensing information to reflect that.
Another problem, again, is the conflict of interest. Whether or not there truely is one, the way to determine that is to discuss it on the talk page and get to the bottom of the issue. The COI template alerts others to the suspiciion of such a conflict. Unilaterally removing the template from the page - repeatedly! - is unconstructive because it impedes this sort of discussion.
Your behavior to me appeared to indicate that you were unwiling to cooperate with others, and that you were trying to assert ownership of these two articles. Articles are here for absolutely everyone to edit, and nobody "owns" them, no matter how much they've contributed. See WP:OWN for an explanation of this policy. When others tag an article as having certain issues, the better way to dispute this is on the talk page. In the case of the Kurweil article, it does indeed have multiple issues and with regards to the problem of neutrality and original research, I already posted about this at length on the talk page maybe a month ago
I apologize if I misjudged you as uncooperative if indeed that's not the case, but please take heed of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in the future, and give more consideration to the concerns other editors raise - especially when it's not just one other editor! — TheBilly(Talk) 03:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


FYI: Transcendent Man has been created using the criteria for FUTURE FILMS that has been established by Wikipedia, from a template provided here on Wikipedia. A future film CAN NOT have a conflict of interest, because there is no one but the producers who know anything about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjnainoa (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Kimya Dawson

As predicted Kimya's not doing so bad. See here ;) Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)