Talk:Billmon

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

-==Untitled== Blog has been deactivated for over six months. Subject of bio no longer meets (and may never have met) the Wikipedia criteria for personal notability. 151.197.244.202 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, this article is on one of the most prominent bloggers / journalists of our time (and a very fine writer). That a writer may have stopped writing does not make him less interesting or notable. ("Notability" is not a word, incidentally.) Nor do encyclopaedias overlook pen-name'd people. Billmon was one of the most influential bloggers of the mid 00's! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.170.182 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 18 July 2007

Which dictionary did you check to determine that "notability" is not a word? It is in all that I checked. See [1] for example. Edison 18:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, nice dictionary. There is no Latin word "Notabilitas," except as a vulgar medievalism. There is a Latin "Notabilis," which is where we get "notable" from. The reason is that "notable" means "such as may be noted" or "worthy of being noted," so "notability" would mean "the general quality of being worthy of being noted," which is a) a few steps removed from making any sense and b) a generalisation of a possibility, not of an actual state of affairs. So you're welcome to your nice neologism but it sadly isn't a real word. 72.45.74.113 20:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, this article will be fleshed out fully in the next couple of days, please do not delete, as entries on bloggers are a recognized part of Wikipedia. I have plenty more to add, all backed up by external links. --Peripatetic 08:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OpEdNews and Philadelphia Inquirer stories gave a few personal details. For a pseudonymous blogger, how much should we avoid providing bio details, if the subject of the article apparently wishes to be anonymous? Edison 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should definitely, definitely be kept: Billmon was a very important web voice at a particular moment in time, and this is a very good source on his work. Surely the multiple Koufax awards speak to his notability. I STRONGLY urge its being kept. SEF23a 05:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey Bar was arguably the greatest single-author political blog ever.

Billbrock 23:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bilmon is still being referred to within the Blogosphere. E.g.: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/09/jeffrey-toobin-.html I did not know who Billmon had been, and found this Wikipedia entry useful. R1100srider 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article states: "Billmon is the pseudonym of an alleged American American blogger, who disseminates Kremlin propaganda and disinformation regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine [snip]" 1. Nice to know he's an "alleged American American" 2. If Billmon has been entirely inactive since 2016 (no Twitter, no blog, last Daily Kos diary is dated 2013) then how is he "disseminat[ing] Kremlin propaganda and disinformation regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine"?

Notability established[edit]

Recommending removing the "notability" banner from the page regarding Billmon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Po (talk • contribs) 05:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absent objection, I'll do so. Billbrock 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billmon active on Twitter[edit]

I was surprised to see this hasn't been updated, but Billmon is active on twitter (for the past 6 months or so at least). Should that account be linked here? The Dailykos profile lists it. Skeptict (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's @billmon1 right? Was this the same account that disabled on 3/1/2016? --Golden Eternity (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Twitter lists that account as having 104k tweets, so I assume it is the same that was previously disabled. Skeptict (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Billmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413093141/http://www.billmon.org:80/ to http://www.billmon.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]