User talk:Hillbillyholiday/Archive

August 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Michael Michael. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reflection of the suggestion that was made to you here. Please take the time necessary and address the concerns. Thank you. Alex Shih ^Talk 15:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! What a shit-shamble of mongsters! Did you even bother to look at that article? Of course you didn't... Y'know, I'm suddenly minded of an old comment from one of our more eloquent erstwhile contributors:

I'm glad that the stereotype of Wiki editors as pompous, sanctimonious, power-drunk jobsworth arseholes actively blocking having entries improved and corrected if the requisite forms haven't been filled out in triplicate in exactly the right shade of blue ink between 2.16pm and 2.23pm on a Tuesday has turned out to be a myth.

You're an absolute embarrassment. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Alex Shih, just to clarify, if I might. Do you think, personally, on the basis of the sources that have been provided in the Michael Michael article, that he can be fairly accused of being involved in the murder of Charlie Wilson? I think you would agree with me that that is quite a serious accusation to make against someone who is still alive? Of course, having read the sources provided, you might feel that such a claim is indeed justified. In which case, I guess, you would feel it your duty to re-add that material. Personally, I'd recommend a little caution in that regard. Thanks for your time. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih, I agree with Martinevans123. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: @Drmies: Thank you both. I have explained my rationale and the follow-ups on my talk page. Alex Shih ^Talk 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Michael Michael has been reporting as saying he knows who killed Charlie Wilson. The gutting and edit warring on the article removed that little important bit. So no, that is not a BLP violation. — nihlus kryik (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have some better sources for that claim? Or is that The History Channel again? I think you'll find that, in the real world of libel and defamation, compliance with Wikipedia editing policies count for very little. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your assertion that I need to provide sources. I stated the reason for the paragraph and why it was included and that it wasn't accusing him of the murder as you said. — nihlus kryik (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder of Charlie Wilson" is just the sort of neutral section heading you might find in anyone's article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a piss poor title, but you're trying to argue with the wrong person, as all I intended to do was clarify what happened. — nihlus kryik (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for clarification. That particular article, for example, looks a lot clearer to me in its present form. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, I'm disappointed because I expected you'd at least check the edit history before agreeing with this nonsense. The section heading "Murder of Charlie Wilson" was clearly listed as a subheading of "Career as Informant". Nobody was accusing the subject of murdering Charlie Wilson, but instead discussing the claim that subject knew the identity of the killer. This is as far from a BLP violation as I can imagine. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced to The Sun, AlexEng? Really? --John (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, John, I agree it could use a RS, but that's a far cry from the outlandish claim that the subject was being "accused of being involved in ... murder". It also doesn't excuse a 3RR violation, when the policy explicitly states "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. This is especially egregious given the fact that 3RRNO was explicitly not used as rationale in any of the edit summaries, and the editor failed to participate in discussion which would have easily cleared this up despite urging to do just that. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng, I don't understand why you're disappointed in me--if you have any expectations of me, you should know me, and if you know me, you know that "err on the side of caution" is my BLP mantra. I do not understand why a slew of experienced editors can't just let that be while the matter is being discussed. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, we've had positive interactions before, and I had never known you to rush to conclusions. Your words carry a lot of weight, so I had hoped you would be more careful before publicly stating your agreement. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlexEng, please don't overestimate the weight of my words, or the importance I attach to the BLP. My wording is actually pretty careful here considering I have not delved so deeply into the matter that I want to speak out in condemnation of this editor or that--but I have looked deeply enough to be convinced that the BLP was reasonably invoked, which is about all I can ask for. I can be stubborn and sometimes less calm than I want to be when it comes to being reverted, but I hope it has never happened after someone invoked the BLP with a reasonable claim. I believe this here was reasonable enough, and reasonable enough for an unblock. I agree with John, about on who the onus is etc., and that Hillbillyholiday could have left better edit summaries; sure. But note when the block came--quite some time after Hillbillyholiday had stopped reverting, so there also I don't think this was a really good block--Alex Shih, I'm sorry, but do I see this correctly, that the block came a day after? Drmies (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, to the bulk of your response – fair enough. However, I don't agree that the way in which Hillbillyholiday behaved is appropriate. If this were a case of a reasonable claim of WP:3RRNO by reason of BLP exception, it should have been stated... literally anywhere. Instead, I saw canned revert summaries, which only exacerbate an edit war. I should also point out that Hillbillyholiday was reported for edit warring 5 days ago, and the report was closed as "stale" because he announced a wiki-break. I would say a block was warranted then, but avoided by that announcement. When you add up 3 incidents in 4 days, you don't think a 24h block is warranted to halt continued disruption? AlexEng^(TALK) 00:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we mention the murder on his article if he was not involved in it? Yet none of the reliable sources made the connection. Detailed discussion of this is one for the article talk page really. But you must accept that HBH's edits were absolutely correct, and that anyone reverting was egregiously breaching BLP. I agree the edit summaries could have been clearer, but really the onus is on those wanting to restore the material. --John (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained why: because he was thought to have inside knowledge about the identity of the killer, according to the last statement in that paragraph. Why would you assume that the presence of a section heading with the word "murder" implies that the subject is the perpetrator? The article is largely about the subject's career as an informant. I absolutely do not accept that his edits were right, and I'm going to throw that back at you: you must accept that HBH's edits were absolutely incorrect, and that his reversions were an egregious breach of 3RR. To reiterate what I said in my previous statement, whether he was right or wrong, edit warring is unacceptable. Surely you must understand that, at least, even if we don't agree on the content dispute. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The version that made that allegation was sourced to The Sun and the Daily Mail which are not reliable sources. They can publish allegations like that and have the resources to fight a resulting legal case. WP:BLP and WP:ARBBLP are clear that we have a higher standard. It isn't a content dispute and it isn't a debate. You signed up for this and you consent to it with every edit you make. --John (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, can you clarify to which "allegation" you are referring? My understanding is that you're talking about the claim that the subject of the article provided information to police about the murder of Charlie Wilson. This is not contentious, nor would it be considered contentious by a reasonable person; the subject is a well-known police informant. The evidence for that particular claim is spotty, if at all existent. I think we agree on that bit. What we don't agree on, if I understand correctly, is the idea that it is acceptable behavior to revert without explanation 7 times on an article and refuse to participate in discussion. If it is your position that this fits the standards of behavior on the project, then I oppose this point of view. It is supported neither by policy nor by the linked Arb case, which specifically points out that incivility is prohibited. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I didn't look back far enough. So, just to clarify again. Did that article suggest that informing on the identity of the killer of Charlie Wilson was part of Michael's "Career as Informant"? Not quite as serious a claim as that he was involved in the murder, but a wholly unsubstantiated claim nevertheless? User:AlexEng, you're suggesting that it would be acceptable to leave the article in that version which suggested (very strongly to me, obviously) that Michael actually was involved in the murder? Are you intending to revert that last deletion by HBH? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, I'm suggesting that a discussion, as initiated by Tenebrae in the article talk page would have easily cleared up any misunderstanding. At the very least, if he was serious about improving the article, he could have changed the section heading to be clearer rather than revert without comment 7 times. I'm also suggesting that this editor has actively refused, in the past, to engage in talk page discussions when asked. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd have to agree with you, over the potential value of a Talk page discussion. I just think that your notion of "serious" and that held by HBH are currently "divergent." Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that may be true. I just hope we don't diverge in our notions of "disruptive." AlexEng^(TALK) 21:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or does the relevant link on the Charlie Wilson (criminal) article lead to The Sun's thoughtful advice to Kylie Jenner from Justin Beiber?! JezGrove (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Situations that happen taint your mind, especially in this industry. Especially for girls.” Sorry, but yes, it's just you Jezza. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. It seems The Sun has changed their URL structure since 2013, when the article was accessed. Here's an archived version, but there's a paywall. I don't think it worthwhile to replace the broken link with an unreadable version, though. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should canvass John for his view of using a paywall for The Sun. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out there's a version without the paywall. I suppose I'll replace the old link. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Best not tell John, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Phew, thank God Michael Michael wasn't accused of something REALLY heinous like tabloid journalism or backing Remain (take your pick .. ) JezGrove (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 24-hour block has been lifted at 22:00 UTC based on the discussion here. Alex Shih ^Talk 03:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Could you possibly not edit at User talk:Flyer22 Reborn for the next while? I don't think anything good will come of it and I don't think anybody seriously believes you are a sockpuppet. Thanks for your cooperation. --John (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The day the music died[edit]

Song cycles (Killmayer) for your inspiration. The author is in Recent deaths, - a first for me. Writing the article was an act of defiance. - The press: on 24 August the FAZ printed that Aloys Kontarsky died, without a DOD. That tells me that he died before that day, also see talk (where 22 was mentioned as likely but without confirmation). Now Le Monde printed that he died on 24 August, and it is in the article like that. ~~I don't know what to do.~~ --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inspiration, Gerda, sorely needed. I can't see anything wrong with having just August as the date pending alternative sources. Which of the song cycles would you recommend as a toe-dipper? any good youtube links? ;) --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try this (not Killmayer) ;) - Did you see the crazy DYK I made for Killmayer years ago? (was on my talk)? Today, I would make three or four with that information. I never met him but two of his students, mentioned in his article. - Looking for Killmayer on YouTube, I find only one vocal entry, Sappho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The day mentioned above is now confirmed 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The day you gave me a tree[edit]

... was 21 August, - I missed the anniversary, but was just reminded. I still works magic, as the 2012 tree there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you need encouragement[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		Although I did warn you for edit-warring/disruption, I have since realized that your efforts and intentions have been for the betterment of this site. — Anakimi_lambaste 07:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of editing restriction[edit]

By the consensus of the community [1], you are now subject indefinitely to the following editing restriction: Hillbillyholiday is restricted to one revert per article per every 72 hour period in the BLP topic area, broadly construed, except in cases of obvious vandalism. Hillbillyholiday is encouraged to take disputes to the article talk page or the BLP noticeboard. Any violation of this restriction may be enforced by a block from editing. Please let me know if you have any questions as to what the restriction means. If you believe that this decision was made in error or is no longer necessary, you may appeal the restriction at the administrators' noticeboard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it's official! --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we could arrange that you have your medicine another way? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rules? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Took me down on the highway, Doing too many miles an hour". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't I told you 4500 times not to quote Quo lyrics?JezGrove (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We all make mistakes, forgive me?" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Remember not, Lord, our offences (not by me) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was there, in and out. Better tell stories: The Tale of Tsar Saltan, of his Son the Renowned and Mighty Bogatyr Prince Gvidon Saltanovich and of the Beautiful Princess-Swan --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As McMurphy put it,

"Jesus, I mean, you guys do nothing but complain about how you can't stand it in this place here and you don't have the guts just to walk out? What do you think you are, for Chrissake, crazy or somethin'? Well you're not! You're not! You're no crazier than the average asshole out walkin' around on the streets and that's it."

And yet, here we all are…! JezGrove (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not for too much longer, I expect... --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — nihlus kryik (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Nihlus, that sounds like a lorra fun!

Just so you know, I have absolutely no intention of abiding by this silly restriction. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I argued for you in the discussion where this restriction was imposed; nonetheless, consensus is against you. IAR is a thing, but ignoring this rule will have the consequence that you will be blocked from editing. GoldenRing (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes! GoldenRing, if I see and remove BLP-violating bullshit on my travels and some know-nowt nudnik straight-up reverts me without explanation, then yeah, I will take it to the BLPN. But I am not going to hang around waiting for a response from the peanut gallery if there are serious problems, and I will revert back if I think it's necessary. This restriction is ludicrous and actually quite offensive considering I have done as much as anyone here to improve BLPs. I'm afraid it's IAR all the way, baby. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"When the bogon encounters its antiparticle, the cluon, they mutually annihilate each other, releasing magic smoke." --Hillbillyholiday (talk) (cf. Seagulls)

Blocked[edit]

While the first violation of your editing restriction did not result in a block because it was not brought forward promptly, it was a violation. This is the second time, so you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. Please be aware that future violations will result in longer or indefinite blocks. I suspect that you are familiar with the process for appealing a block if you wish to do so, but if not, it may be found at the guide to appealing blocks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poifect. I'd just booked a week's hols in sunny Angoisse. See you next Friday! --Hillbillyholiday (talk) (Sigh.)

September 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for Violation of community editing restriction. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the following edits: [2], [3], [4], [5]. 1RR per 72 hours means just that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That 1RR thing was bullshit -- a halfwitted hamstringing imposed by a passing mob of clueless drama-whores more concerned with slavish adherence to arbritrary "rules" than living people. Well, Rick, I am going to cock a snoot at both "restriction" and "block" per the following policies: Ignore all rules and WP:Anyone can edit.
Don't worry though, my socks are easily spotted: just look for anyone signing off with two dashes! --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't nobody got time for that!

--Hillbillyholiday (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mike cat british museum.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mike cat british museum.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singing your praises[edit]

... in memory --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. How grand you are! An honour, I'm sure, but... --Hillbillyholiday (talk)

Hillbillyholidaying in Cardiff this year are we Sir? There's lovely, look you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, we also calls it "golden vag" down by ere, but I usually makes do with dog-ends off the pavement... --Hillbillyholiday (talk)

The response from another one in the club was a bit more enthusiastic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well that Joe seems like a nice chap, I must say. Don't know much about this other fellow snoutcast -- although the name rings a bell. --Hillbillyholiday (talk)

ouch!, straight on the money there boyo, lol. Do you realise that was the first actual laugh I have had here in four months?? I loved Billy too, you know.... his chirpy little ways... his friendly peck of the finger when you stuck it through the bars of a morning... *sob" Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Hillbillyholiday. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda[edit]

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Drop-in Centre)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Oi, Billy-hill-o-haz-beanz... Hoping that Christmas may bless you with peace, love and understanding... and wishing that you have a good run in 2018!!

Heddwch ac ewyllys da[edit]

		Compliments of the season Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment
		Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 18:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 19:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Beardie[edit]

Old Beardie wishes you well and hopes you'll travel back soon!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and me. ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} ‑ ‑ 19:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, like a narner how time flies... Wait, am i doing it right? Hope you are both well. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your eight days of feisty and controversial expurgations. At least you didn't link to any YouTube copyvios, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC) p.s. I'd have to agree that did look entirely frivolous. But you could have at least searched for a better source??[reply]

Desert[edit]

Handel's birthday was yesterday, he composed He was despised, and I made it a redirect in March 2012. For you - miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. Always good to see you. Been away doing some dessert inspection myself, but, alas, I must make like a narner and split. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was good to see you. Just found this: Die Passagierin, Opera in Frankfurt on YouTube, related to Zofia Posmysz. Will sing on Good Friday: "Durch dein Gefängnis" (by your prison). It was my DYK #500, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned you among the despised + I just saw the opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say dessert? Great to see you've got your just desserts, at last. "fnaar, fnaar" [6] Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another Daily Mail RfC[edit]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Guy. How thoughtful of you.

So let me get this straight... You think that I'd be a good person to help decide on the wording of a criticism section about the newspaper I got "banned" from this site? A criticism section that refers to said "ban"? That uses as a source the Guardian's scoop which came about after I contacted their tech reporter? A criticism section in an article about the paper what went after my mother because they couldn't track me down? The paper that labelled me a "vile internet troll" a "clearly obsessive newspaper-hater" and a "bigoted oddball"??

Of course, the idea of using Wikipedia to traduce their good name (again) is rather appealing, but you know what this place is like, full of Negative Nancys ever whinging about "conflicts of interest" and all that! Oh, and in case you forgot, the Mail quoted your "Kill it. Kill it with fire" remark from the RfC and refer to you as one of a "self-selecting handful of other zealots".

Also, my enthusiasm for this site somewhat dimmed after the community sanctioned me for attempting to sort out various libellous articles, with two of the administrators that blocked me for removing libel now on the Arbitration Committee.

So, all in all, all things considered, probably best I sit this one out. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) (or should I just come back with a different username?)

Alas, I had two choices. [1] Give the same notice to everyone who !voted at the RfC, or [2] be accused of WP:VOTESTACKING. Of course I got accused anyway, but I do try to follow the rules. BTW, is it too late to get the (spit!) DM to upgrade me from self-selected zealot to vile internet troll? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hillbillyholiday and BLP articles again. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for violation of community editing restriction almost immediately after returning to editing.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying this place is run by a bunch of clowns, but I could probably sue for funfair dismissal. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. ^[FBDB] Martinevans123 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sick and f***ing tired of removing citations to The Sun (we still have about 80) and The Daily Mail (over 1200) from BLPs. Can I have a second for unblocking Hillbillyholiday (who I see was de-facto banned with thoughtful comments like "let's lose the asshat") or do we have to take it to the WP:Dramaboard first? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If only Hillbilly could come back (without any attached socks) under a period of "supervised probation" and be given a useful task to complete like "remove all inappropriate DM citations"? But the likelihood of Neil agreeing to that doesn't seem very likely, does it? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'd better go and look through those incredibly exciting ANI threads and see what the actual context is on this. I can contact Hillbilly off-wiki about an unblock, but there's no point if he's just going to get whipped by the peanut gallery and have the appeal tossed out. However, if I see evidence of editors restoring things like this, I will be unimpressed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tossed out, eh? You can't beat a good boar, can you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom notice[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Questionable BLP reverts by blocked editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

... and click on Die Fliege - for the missed, by a friend who is missed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... six years now! I remember how you sent me consolation when I almost needed it, how we worked on an article together just because the alphabet image was so great, moar letters, and inspirational talk right here. Miss it all. I have easy-going communication on my talk today, and memories of a great woman whose grave I photographed, and who was remembered in a concert of songs and dances of death, and flowers I saw with friends, and advice from another friend that can't be repeated enough: "*Unfortunately there are people who get sucked into the 'encyclopedia' bullshit instead of realizing that the 'encyclopedia' is nothing more than the virtual world that gives context to the MMORPG. But I can't really complain, because I was one of them before I wised up. Go on with life, have a laugh, don't get too upset over this." - Sadly, Die Fliege grew. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda[edit]

Martinevans123 ^{(Santa's Hard Brexit Grotto)} ... sends you ...

... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Merry Christmas Baby... and hoping that you have a good New Year !!

2019[edit]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Miss you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Kafka[edit]

Thank you for watching over Franz Kafka. Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FREE GIRAFFE[edit]

File:Giraffe Mardi Gras Costumes in the Marigny 2012.jpg

Can I be unbolcked now please?

I will be good now i promise. Hillbillyholiday (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have a better change if you followed the correct process Wikipedia:Appealing a block - FlightTime (open channel) 01:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I woulf but its quite trickyI'm using a phone I just borrowedOffa homeless man, and it doesn't even have square bracketson it.

Could udo it for me prtety please?

Thanjyou flufhtyine

Declined. Your talk page is to be used only for appealing against a block. The above does not appear to me to be a serious request. Talk page access may be revoked in future. --kingboyk (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator[edit]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

See above.

--- FlightTime (open channel) 02:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hillbillyholiday (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will try to behave like a true wikipedian in the future.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hillbillyholiday (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yamla, the block is no longer necessary because I understand what i have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead.

Decline reason:

Parroting Yamla's message with no indication of understanding is not going to get you unblocked. Huon (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have revoked talk page access. Another admin will be along shortly to review the above unblock request. If declined, that leaves you with WP:UTRS and I strongly urge you to read WP:GAB before making a request there. --Yamla (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to what action was talk page access revoked? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For wasting reviewing admins' time and trolling. There's quite a lot of that on this talk page. Huon (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Desert, prison, Kafka. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My question was addressed to Yamla. Sorry if that wasn't clear. But perhaps you two have agreed an approach between you here? If the second request here is contrary to procedure, it might be helpful if you could spell out how. It looked like progress to me, but Hillbillyholiday has now been further punished for "parotting" and/or for "wasting reviewing admins' time and trolling"? Now that access to his own Talk page has been revoked, it's unclear what his next step should be. Are you just saying "don't even bother again" i.e. it's "game over"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to why you think progress has been made here. I'm confused why you think offers of pictures of giraffes address the sockpuppetry. I'm confused why you think "I will try to behave like a true wikipedian in the future" address the sockpuppetry. I'm confused why you think copying and pasting my unblock decline is a meaningful step forward. This user is outright trolling. "I just borrowedOffa homeless man", "Could udo it for me prtety please?", etc. I'll also note that I provided a path forward. WP:UTRS is still available to this user. --Yamla (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. I don't see pictures of giraffes as being overly disruptive to the encyclopedia. You blocked user access to the Talk page for him adding pictures of giraffes? What actions would you accept as valid steps in "addressing the sockpuppetry"? Are you suggesting that sockpuppety is continuing? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not for adding pictures, for claiming that these pictures were sufficient grounds to lift the block. I'm sorry, if you don't see a problem here, we fundamentally aren't going to agree. The user is free to make an unblock request, I've explained how. They haven't even attempted to address the sockpuppetry, but are required to do so if they want the block lifted. I'm done, I have nothing more to say about this user. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not necessarily seeking agreement or disagreement. I was seeking clarification. I'm sorry that you did not answer my question about sockpuppetry. Maybe you and Huon think that removal, by Hillbilly, of some of the frivolous material here would help his case. But of course, he won't be able to do that now. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillbillyholiday had plenty of chances to not be frivolous about getting unblocked. Removing the trolling after the fact wouldn't help their case; not having trolled in the first place would have helped. I don't know whether block evasion was still ongoing recently, but not even addressing the open announcement of their intent to evade the block (that they promptly carried out) is ... not promising. Have they learned something, do they intend to change their conduct going forward? Did we happen to block their latest IP a few days ago? Or were they just having fun wasting others' time? I can't tell, they didn't tell, but the evidence points to the last of these options. Huon (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really unsure why an image of a giraffe, or at least of a Mardi Gras giraffe costume, was added. I suppose it's seen as "trolling" because the Talk page is meant to be used only ever for requesting an unblock, in the most serious way possible. I guess when one gets blocked, all of one's humour credits immediately get cashed in, yes? Perhaps it was a deliberate ploy to "waste your time". I don't know. And now Hillbilly can't clarify either way. One other editor acted AGF. But I'm now a bit confused. You say I don't know whether block evasion was still ongoing recently and then also Did we happen to block their latest IP a few days ago? These seem to be somewhat contradictory. If you did block that IP, on the basis it was a possible sock, shouldn't that be added to their "Possible sockpuppets" list? You seem to be party to information that the rest of us are not. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, maybe you can point out which of Hillbillyholiday's edits since the block indicate, in your opinion, that they were willing to take responsibility for their own conduct, were actually interested in getting unblocked, and showed how they would avoid, going forward, the problems that led to their block in the first place? Regarding the possible sockpuppetry or lack thereof: An IP address would only be added to the "possible sockpuppet" list if it was recognized to be them (and if the admin blocking it felt that updating the SPI was worth the effort). As I said, I have no idea whether or not something like that happened. Finally, "now Hillbilly can't clarify either way" - of course they can. Yamla told them how. Yamla told you how, separately. Was that in any way unclear? Huon (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, if you "have no idea whether or not something like that happened", I'm not sure why you mentioned it. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, I metioned it in a list of possibilities, some of which would be conducive to Hillbillyholiday getting unblocked and some of which wouldn't. As I said back then, "I can't tell [whether one or another of those options applies], they didn't tell, but the evidence points to the last of these options [the trolling]." I hope that answers your question. Could you now please answer mine? Huon (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UTRS seems a perfectly clear link. But I see now... they didn't tell makes them a potential suspect of all sorts of unforgivable misdemeanors, on a list of possibilities as long as you'd care to invent? So much for the "glorious fifth", as I think it's sometimes referred to. Could we perhaps throw in off-wiki death threats, potential litigation and impersonation of Jimmy Wales at ArbCom in the WP:FRAM case, while we're at it? I'm guessing they're also not conducive to getting one unblocked. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martinevans123, I'm not clear on what it is you're trying to accomplish here by repeatedly asking the reviewing admins the same questions. Do you think the above block appeals were sincere requests based on WP:GAB? AlexEng^(TALK) 21:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to establish what was the basis, and at what step in this chronology, talk page access had been revoked. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I thought my initial question might have helped with that. But I've been advised to give up, as it's unlikely either to help Hillbillyholiday's cause (somewhat opaque though that might be) or to elucidate the logical basis on which Admin actions have been taken here. So I shall. It just looked to me like a case of "bad cop/bad cop". Sorry if you have been unduly distracted. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC) p.s. a straight answer would have been useful.[reply]

There are at least three distinct unblock requests on this page that required an admin to answer them. Martinevans123, I don't think you ever commented on which of Hillbillyholiday's edits since the block indicate, in your opinion, that they were willing to take responsibility for their own conduct, were actually interested in getting unblocked, and showed how they would avoid, going forward, the problems that led to their block in the first place. Since you have been asked about that multiple times without providing an answer, I'm going to assume that you don't actually see any unblock request that met those rather basic criteria. Personally I'd have given Hillbillyholiday one more attempt, but I'm very patient with trolls, and removing talk page access after having Hillbillyholiday waste admin time thrice seems reasonable enough to me. Also, if you cannot see how it's relevant whether someone who publicly announced they'd evade the block and proceeded to do just that was still evading the block recently or not, and that addressing the block evasion in their unblock request was pretty much a prerequisite to getting unblocked, I'm not sure I have anything else to say that would help. Huon (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this: Yamla, the block is no longer necessary because I understand what i have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. as both reasonable and genuine. It was dismissed as "paroting". I'm sorry that you did not offer this detailed explanation to Hillbillyholiday before you removed his Talk page access. Perhaps you are patient. Perhaps I missed the pauses. Yesterday you said "I'm done, I have nothing more to say about this user." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ya know, I'am starting to feel bad for this user, unless I'm wrong, even though their TPA has been revoked, I think their still getting notified of each post. You guys need to stop. 19:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC) - FlightTime (open channel) 19:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]