Jump to content

User talk:Bilby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TickleMeister (talk | contribs) at 06:52, 5 January 2011 (→Good work on Euthanasia and the slippery slope: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at SirNameless's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
User
User 		Talk
Talk 		Gallery
Gallery 		Contributions
Contribs 		Email
Email

Template:Archive box collapsible

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

{{Wikipedia:

Indented line

Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-10}}

Information systems (discipline)

Just out of curiosity, I looked it up. Its been a while since I've seen five fixit plates on one article. Controversial stuff. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a mess, but then the discipline is poorly defined, and still relies heavily on the reference disciplines. I've considered working on it, and might one day, but I spend pretty much all of my time teaching students about what IS and IT are, so I never feel like extending that to my time here. :) Plus my field is fairly narrow in IS - my IS research is largely on the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the discipline, rather than the discipline as a whole, which makes things tricky in a wide ranging article. - Bilby (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

History of the ACT

Is it ready to be copyedited yet? Is the content down pat? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, now is as good a time as any. I've got some more stuff I could add, but it might be better to see if we can survive FARC and then add it, as it isn't core. - Bilby (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okey. Btw in your readings on the ACT in the local history journals, did you come across anything on Yarralumla, Australian Capital Territory? The history there is in a wobbly state. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While your'e looking up the Australia terrain, can you look at teh sorresponding bit in Canberra. Almost done except for that, the companies in the city and the TV/radio stations YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll see what I can do, as well as looking into Yarralumla. I'm a tad concerned about where FAR is heading, so I'm not sure if long term I'll be able to keep playing there, but I should be able to help out with those. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were worried FAR might become like your FAC experience, well History of the ACT won't get knocked down. There's always email if you want to be more specific but none of the three Australian ones will get knocked down. And the recent change to it means that it might be shut down for all intents and pruposes anyway, but in any case, we can always pre-empt things and then it won't get there in the first place, like I'm trying to do with Yagan, Dunstan and Playford, so if the customs annoy you, they can be avoided. Prevention is always better :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll just have to copyedit it before your friend arrives :) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so concerned about any of the current ones, more that how things will change if the focus moves to reviewing over updating. Which seems like it might become the trend. However, I'll see how things go - I enjoy the focus on a new topic, which needs to be much greater than what you do in order to reference something to meet the GNG, so there remains an appeal. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

INFT

Hey Adam, Do I get bonus marks for refferencing wikipedia on cloud computing :P Also whats your thoughts on the CU OS ellection? Cheers Brett.  «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No bonus points, sorry. But unlike most lecturers, I'll let you do it. :)
No one getting enough support to make it to OS is fascinating. The discussion is really interesting, too. I need to get my head around the 70% thing - I have a feeling that going with a threshold rather than a majority allows for more political activism, and stuffs up close candidates, especially with oppose votes. Thinking about it, it seems that if you want candidate X to make it, you are arguably better of voting oppose for candidates Y and Z than you are voting support for X. Even if you don't know Y and Z, so aren't opposed per se, voting neutral simply maintains the status quo rather than progressing the person you think should win, as neutral votes don't get counted in the tally. For example, let's say that there are five people running and five voters. 4 voters think that candidates 1,2,3 & 4 are ok, and vote for them, but don't know candidate 5, so vote neutral. One voter likes candidate 5, but doesn't know candidates 1-4. If that voter opposes candidates 1-4 they'll each get 80% (just above the threshold), but candidate 5 will get 100%, even though candidate 5 only had one support vote, and the others had 4 each.
I don't know why they don't just go with preferential voting and be done with it - at least that always gets a result. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

We have survivors

Thanks for your work on History of the ACT YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I happily acknowledge that others - especially you - carried most of the load this time. :) I'm glad it made it through. - Bilby (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability - in practice not everything need actually be attributed?

Could you offer some sort of independent opinon about this discussion[1]? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and catch up. However, oddly enough, I've just been writing a paper (as in today) about the role of verification and justification on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure what position that puts me in - I'm probably ok so long as I stay clear of issues directly covered in the paper. - Bilby (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gavin. I tried writing a response to this earlier, but it was long-winded so I removed it. This will still be long winded, but less so. :)
Thus a quick answer: personally, I think "attributed" is better than a"attributable" - it places the burden of proof on the person including the content, rather than on a third party who has to challenge it. We already do that with BLPs, although even there it's more of a "if it isn't attributed you can remove it" than a "don't add it without attributions" kind of thing. The difficulty is that it would be misused if worded that way.
If policy follows practice, then I get the impression that we're moving towards insisting on sources before (or when) we add content. We're not really grandfathering it, so existing content continues to remain unless challenged, but there seems to be a bit of a tendency to remove content that is unsourced when added.
Finally, in regard to the specific comment you linked to: I'd argue that the four most important policies are WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:NPOV and WP:V. This question seems rather important to how WP:V functions, at least as things are at the moment.
If the discussion flares up again I'll toss in my two cents. - Bilby (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

flag icons

Hi, saw the tussle over the flag icon at "City Homicide". I have to say that IMO the flag is just a decoration that adds confusion rather than useful information: the Australian flag is almost indistinguishable from the NZ flag without a magnifying glass; I believe another few flags are similar, too. Tony (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tony! I agree fully. :) The problem was simply a bit of confusion - the flag was removed by your script both in the infobox and in a table further down the page, but the table featured the flags of several countries. Thus we ended up with a situation where there were five countries showing flags in the table, and one (Australia) that didn't - which caused issues with design consistency. I was happy either to have all the flags removed or to put the Australian one back, but I went with replacing it as it seemed like the less controversial solution.
Unfortunately, the other editor saw me replacing the flag and mistakenly thought I was replacing the infobox one, as he didn't realise the context of the edit, and the diff wouldn't have shown that. Hence the confusion. He ended up choosing to remove them all, which is fine with me. - Bilby (talk) 09:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS

I am not hanging on [| this] statement, in fact the article may be better without it but if someone asserts that a source is crap he should point to a discussion of the subject when removing stuff. Fact is, many publications use materials from wikipedia and most of them are not unreliable just because of this. Richiez (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree. :) Just saying it is no good is a major problem, and generally if I want to question the reliability of a source I think it should be raised on the discussion page. However, I'm concerned that the source is self published, and that gives us a lot less room to move. But if you think it is better to keep the content in and tag it, I'll support that. - Bilby (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it is not necessary to do any complications, I will drop a message to the user though. Richiez (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hassles, but I'll defer should you later decide to add the piece with a tag or raise it on the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that. To be honest I did my research on the source, found it was completely dodgy, and found that it had been referenced in multiple wiki articles. I don't mind keeping the material there, but the source definitely needs to be removed. See here:Sbmackay (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was a little worried that you might have been overzealous but do not see anything controversial. Even crap books may be citable in special circumstances, if they express an opinion supported by a notable community. Famously crap books is a different category:) Richiez (talk) 09:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double Gammas again

The Double Gammas have been tagged for deletion. MartinSFSA (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it is, thanks for your wise counsel. MartinSFSA (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Double Gammas page has been deleted, with the list not appearing on the Doctor Who in Australia page. Perhaps I misunderstood what Merge meant? MartinSFSA (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darrin McGillis

Thank you for chiming in on Gregr talk page re Darrin McGillis Afd I thought last night that perhaps I was the lone wolf on the thinking and it's good to know I still have a few marbels left.--Dymo400 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Macpherson

As always, you manage to write what I am thinking, only with much more clarity and elegance! Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 06:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your explanations were pretty good - especially your suggestion on what to do. The problem is that a rules-based approach rarely manages the gray areas well, and the gray area in these cases is rather nasty. Still, Wikipedia does change. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on RfC

Bilby,

I appreciate your comments. I was actually trying to take the advice, and followed one of the editor's advice when I templated Sarah. The first response from BWilkens was "You templated her? WTF?" Now BWilkens also immediately edited the comment to make it much more appropriate, while leaving the same general impression. It gave me the very strong feeling that the admins were circling the wagons, and that I was on my own.

It was also apparent that Wikipedia policies only apply as the admins decide they apply. WP:NOTPERFECT is clear, admins have to respond to queries and Arbcom decisions support that. This may not be the actual practice, but that is what is in writing and editors, unless they have been involved in these cases, have no way of knowing that it is not the actual practice.

I left a final post on Jimbo's page, stating what my focus is now - it's not about Sarah, I never wanted sanctions anyway. The problem that I see is that the immediate reaction of the admins are to protect one of their own, and that there is no assistance for editors that are not familiar with the process.

I don't know if I can convey this properly, but it would have made a tremendous difference if an admin had offered to act as a go between, to try and work out or resolve the issues. It may not have worked, but if even one had made the effort, I would have been able to move past this - but not one admin even offered to do that, and the "drop it" advice just seems like stonewalling to protect their own. There are also no resources or advocates for editors, while it seems that admins rush to defend and advocate one of their own. It leaves me with the feeling that this is a nobility/peasant system, with no recourse for the peasants. Anyway, I thank you for your comments and your explanations. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Can you help?

There is currently a backlog of 25 users seeking to be adopted in the Adopt-a-user program.

--SwarmTalk 06:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long

I totally agree with your edits there. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Personal attack

Do not personal attack me. This is between me and other wikipedian. - GuineaPigWarrior 12:00 30 June, 2010.

Sorry - you seem to have misread what I wrote. 3RR isn't a personal attack, but a simple warning that if you continue to edit war you risk being blocked. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Sathya Sai Baba

Hi. I see you inserted a template below a picture, which solved a problem I had been trying to fix with wrapping text around images. Can you tell me what that template is and does? Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Caretaker coach

Fair enough, but the article should be under my edits not his as it is a more accurate version and that I also have other edits there that are not related to "caretaker" coaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 06:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"More accurate?" thats a personal view and there is no place for that on wikipedia. GuineaPigWarrior 16:35, 13 July, 2010.

I'd tend to disagree there - we want things to be as accurate as we can. Admittedly, that's "accurate to the sources" rather than anything else, but it is a worthy aim. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry to but in here, but Guinea pig warrior, you're being rather annoying and really not displaying much common sense. Aaroncrick TALK 08:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

D&D sources

I had forgotten how clearly proficient you are at finding sources for D&D articles. How could I forget such a thing?  :) Would you mind commenting here, if you have a moment? Thanks! BOZ (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can dig up - I'd love to do some D&D stuff again. - Bilby (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'd love to have you back!  :) We (myself, Peregrine Fisher, and Drilnoth if you've seen him around) put together a massive effort last year and got a couple FA's and more than a dozen GA's - it was very refreshing given what was going on with D&D articles for two years before that!  :) BOZ (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I might suggest a starting place, Book of Vile Darkness did not survive GAR - probably just need a couple of independent sources to make another run and get it back up there. If that's not your cup of tea, I could look around and see what else there is! BOZ (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted a list on the talk page.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had any luck with that yet? :) BOZ (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got two good sources, one of which is particularly good. Need to work out how best to use them, though. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any way I can help? Let me know! Colour me intrigued. ;) BOZ (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

Adoption request

Hello, can I request that you adopt me? I'm in Wellington NZ, and you seem to be indentifiably close. (Typo fixed) Am looking to work on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karori_Wildlife_Sanctuary, and well aware of the complexities of wikipedia.

For instance, this morning ran up against 'removed travel agency ref' when what I edited didn't seem to qualify for that tag. Now off to search policies and stuff, and figure where I discuss the point.

Phil Lyth (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

Julia Gillard

I'm not sure whether Julia has to declare that she is an atheist for it to be a notable issue - It is something a few liberals have commented on (A google search pulls out a few statements). The closest I think Julia has come to stating her views was on Jon Fayne [1] in the following statement: FAINE: Do you believe in God? PM: No, I don't Jon, I'm not a religious person. Whether or that its an issue worth notable of wikipedia is another matter. (I don't have an opinion either way, I just like details). Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it may be notable, since the media seem to be push the fact that she swore an affirmation rather than a bible oath when sworn in as prime-minister. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question which we faced was whether or no this meant that she was an atheist - Gillard's only recorded comment on that score seems to be to say that she is an agnostic. It seems that a couple of candidates have interpreted her comments to mean atheism, but that's simply an interpretation they've made, rather than something she has stated. However, I do agree that her lack of belief on God was notable, so it should be covered - the problem has been whether or not to categorise that belief, with the eventual decision just to leave the question of agnostic/atheist unsaid unless she made a more recent statement. - Bilby (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club

Yes, I will stop editing the page. - GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 23:05, 29 July, 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Bilby, please don't WP:BITE or WP:EDITWAR with the newbies. Discuss things on talk pages. That's what they're there for.

Richmondian (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. If you mean User:Nyackcruiser, the user had made only two edits - both BLP violations - before making two edits to 2009 Richmond High School gang rape, which I reverted with a neutral edit summary. You seem to be applying a very strict and somewhat unusual definition of both edit warring and biting. That said, this seems a tad uncalled for. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet

I'm not sure where to report this myself, but seeing as you reported Guinea pig warrior in the first place for Edit waring, you might want to look at [2] as it is obviously GPW editing while blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.185.51 (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised it at SPI - while I'd much rather just see Guinea pig warrior return to productive editing, as the editor does a lot of good stuff, using an IP to continue to edit war while blocked for edit warring is a problem. - Bilby (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

Retirement

As of 18 August, 2010, I will leave forever. It seems I am being bullied on here. After all the work I have done with no credit at all. I will not put up with this no longer. No help from admins, just wanting to block me, why don't you "help" me instead of "picking" on me? I made my mide up basically after I was blocked last time, I almost left but didn't and came back for week and now I am being treated like a person who came out of jail. I'm only aloud to make an edit to page a day, if I am being treated that way it is pointless to return. After 1 year, 5 months, 27 days, "goodbye". Please leave a goodbye message on discussions page if you please. GuineaPigWarrior Forever!

Happy Bilby's Day!

Bilby has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Bilby's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, Bilby!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! That's terrific. I'm not sure that I merit it, but I greatly appreciate it. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

I reached the same conclusion about 10-15 minutes earlier, and a careful review of my edits will confirm that. Notice that I haven't actually made an accusation, as others have done; I've merely raised the possibility. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it seems you may have reached that decision, but you then left the content in the earlier edits. And while it is true that technically it wasn't directed, raising the possibility that editors were acting in that manner with no evidence was a a bit much - especially when you were using it to bring other editors to the article. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmanian Devil

FAR knock YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness is a tricky one to meet. :) I'll have a look, though, and see what I can do. - Bilby (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book by Owen in the further reading on the article, is in UniSA as a digital book. Is it actually saveable in pdf or by cutting and pasting and handing around as it would be great. Mr Owen has also written an analogous book onm thylacine which is also e-book so that would be great if you could pass it around too, as thylacine is also an old FA YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The books are very imformative. I was planning on doing bits last year but I didn't get to it... Aaroncrick TALK 04:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me or the book very anecdotal, whimsical, airy fiary, all over the place and a bit hard to use. I like a technical and logically laid out book YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck with digital book? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will only let me read it online, and I can't save it, although it will let me print a maximum of 60 pages per day. So I'm grabbing what I can and I'll use it to catch up on the overall situation, then see what's been published in the journals since then. It is a great book. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does printscreen allow you to then paste the image in paint and save it as a PNG? and email a few pages to us, lol. It's on loan where I am for a long time YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've got a couple of options that I'm looking into. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a lot of governement reports on the devil because of facial tumour. Aaroncrick TALK 00:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the rest available? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got it all - I'll send them your way as soon as I get home. :) I've been enjoying reading it. - Bilby (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Malkinann has put it to good use YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The echidna was relatively easy to retro-cite. It seems to follow parts of Augee et al rather closely, teh older version. I found the new one YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that was productive. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you sent the book. Some would-be recipients of my emails (pdfs) siad that they weren't coming through on the first try although I got no msg saying it was bust. Has this happened here? as I don't see anything YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On its way - my connection has been flaky, but I did try to send it before. If there was a problem, though, the odds are it was on my end. (I desperately need a new ISP). - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Edward Both

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Both Respirator

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010

Atari XEGS

Not a problem. I actually found them for several toy store chains including Kaybee, Toys 'R Us, and Lionel Kiddie City. Plus I know they were being sold in the Federated electronics stores as well (since Atari owned those for a time). I had heard that rumor from Gamespot long before, and I have no idea where it started. Some author who surmised it and it grew legs of its own until it became "fact". --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren M Jackson

I would like to put this up for deletion.

You'll need to go through the process at WP:AfD. Having been previously nominated for deletion, the article is no longer able to speedy deleted. - Bilby (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put it up for AfD, but it is coming up with the old log, I do not have knowledge to creat a new AfD log.

Most of the fight record is wrong, also the romany routes fracas at the fair is not a source for D M Jackson it is for Henry Jackson. The only true source is fighters magazine from 2004 over 6 years ago, also undeafted in bareknuckle fights, we have no source, in fact most of it is un-sourced. The only fights we can prove are two losts, it need to be removed.Diamonddannyboy (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, you added the fight record and the Romany Routes reference. At any rate, I can't see a problem with removing both. I'll also try fixing the AfD nomination, but you'll need a reason for the nom. - Bilby (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsons Cleaners UK

Please see my comment at Talk:Johnsons Cleaners UK Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

Why aren't you an admin?

I think the breadth of your background and that I've always found you to be reasonable led me to assume you were. You should do that. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've thought about it, but in the end I guess my intent with Wikiepdia was to help write articles, so my focus has always been there. I like the collaborative editing environment. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it would be as open-and-shut as these things generally get. Think about it. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will - thankyou. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Lewis Pulsipher

Hey there. Lewis Pulsipher wrote an article about himself, and the article was put up for speedy deletion. If there's anything you can do to salvage this one, please do! :) BOZ (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've tried tidying it up, and I'll add what sources I can. I think it shoudl be ok, simply because he's significant enough to warrant an article, although the best stuff is long out of print, as we'd need to go back to when the games were current. - Bilby (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emu War

aw you editing this a lot. do you know of any good general sources on emus. The only one I can get is a late 1960s one. wonder if it is out of date. The article needs repairs badly YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not off hand, but they should be easy enough to come by. I'll have a look when I finish getting this week's course materials online. - Bilby (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Bilby, I'm inviting you and Gnangarra to participate in mediation regarding the Ugg boots article, to represent all the Aussie and NZ editors in a discussion to resolve the content dispute once and for all. All other editors are welcome to participate as well, should they choose to do so. Please indicate your acceptance on this page. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll willingly take part in mediation, but I'm not sure I can represent anyone's views other than my own. I haven't been involved in it for years, but my recollection of MedCom was that all parties had to agree, and the trick here would be identifying all parties. Maybe a less formal process, like MedCab? Of course, that presumes than an informal process can work with so many voices. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you the same thing I just told Gnangarra. I just represent myself and no one else, and I'm asking you to represent yourself. If you agree to accept the results of mediation, I think others such as Ripley, Donama and Hoary will follow your lead. That's all that I meant by my previous statement. Attempting to convince everyone to agree to mediation would be self-defeating. Ripley's already indicated that he isn't interested; and without consensus, evidently he wants to continue edit warring. You, Gnangarra, Factchk and I can hammer this out amicably. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to be involved, and I'm always willing to abide by consensus. My concern, though, is that a consensus of a small number of editors at mediation won't necessarily mean much if there are more editors who aren't involved in the process, so that will need to be tackled in order to make it viable. - Bilby (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I've submitted the article for formal mediation here and I've named Gnangarra, Factchk, Bilby, Hoary and myself as the main participants. Others are also welcome to participate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Feminists Fighting Pornography tabling

Simply thanking you for your support in April at FFP talk Corrections (4th post). We finally got the needed review, I got the information in, and the article seems to have (delicately) stabilized. Thanks again. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tas Devil

The last specimen might die at FARC? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's finally the semester break. I promise to get on to this during the week, as I finally have real time to do stuff I like. :) - Bilby (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A marsupial can always rely on a fellow marsupial YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 09:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boo YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you're still researching, but I've squeezed evertying out of the first 30 pages of OP already, so you don't have to worry YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding shrill, more help needed. I've squeezed out up to page 43... I hear you are VP of WMA now. Well done, I'm sure you'll give it teh Shrine of Remembrance transformation YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've desperately been trying to get far enough ahead here so I can help - I think I can finally be of use to you in the next couple of days. - Bilby (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll go on a change of pace, for my own rejuvenation, so we won't overlap in any case.... If you are one the WMA list I made a wail on that zootempber thing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, I wasn't on the WMA list - I guess I should have joined, but just assumed it was either something I was already a member of, or one of the lists I was magically subscribed to when I became VP. I shall remedy that asap. I note that we don't have a featured picture of an emu yet. :) That should be something we need to fix. Too bad the things are so hard to photograph. - Bilby (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help. boohoohoo. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010


Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Ugg boots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 23:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Military terminology at Emu War

Hi, I'm trying to have a discussion about what military terminology is acceptable in the Emu War article. Would you care to take a look at Talk:Emu War and comment on the "Military Action" section? Some guy (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt-a-user reminder

Hello, I have completed a general cleanup of the adopter information page for the adopt-a-user project, located here. During my cleanup, I have removed several inactive and retired users. In order to provide interested adoptees with an easy location to find adopters, it is essential that the page be up-to-date with the latest information possible. Thus:

  • If you are no longer interested in being an adopter, please remove yourself from the list.
  • If you are still interested, please check the list to see if any information needs to be updated or added - especially your availability. Thank you.
  • You are receiving this message because you are listed as an adopter here.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 03:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wikistalking me

You are in violation of the following policy: [3]. You have been following me around WP, harassing me and reverting my edits on a host of unrelated articles for over two years now. The next time you revert one of my edits on an unrelated article, I will bring the appropriate charges against you. I have all of your behavior documented with a long pattern of diffs over the years. Please desist at once--your behavior not only goes against WP policies, but against the spirit of WP. Qworty (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that seems a tad extreme - I don't think I've seen one of your edits for literally months. - Bilby (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how it "seems"--all that matters is how it IS. And I have the archived evidence, right here on WP, of how you have followed me around from article to article, interfering with my work in violation of [4], stalking me and harassing me in a clearly identifiable pattern, with no other purpose than to cause suffering to one of your fellow human beings. You are a piece of work, and your kind doesn't belong on WP. Now back off, and stop following me around the project and interfering with my work on a host of unrelated articles. If you do it again, I will report you. Qworty (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no hassles with leaving you alone - as far as I'm aware, I've been doing that, although it seems your perception is different. I'm not even sure when we last edited the same article, but I can't imagine it was recent. My apologies that you are feeling harassed, as that would never be my intent, and from memory you are a very good editor who does a lot of good work, so causing issues with your editing would not be to anyone's benefit. - Bilby (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, Adam, there are currently 3,429,346 articles on the English language project. Why don't you go ahead and feel free to edit on 3,429,246 of them, and let me go ahead and edit on the 100 or so that are of interest to me, huh? Fair enough? I don't want to see the word "Bilby" on an edit summary right after my handle ever again. Tonight was the final straw. I'll bet one hundred million dollars you never even heard of Janette Turner Hospital before you saw me editing over there. Certainly you are completely unaware of the nuances involved in her latest public defecating on the innocent human beings around her. So yeah, I'll make you a deal, you go ahead and edit on 3.4 million articles, and let me edit on my few dozen, and I won't turn you in. And then you can continue to smile in the mirror and tell yourself what a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful person you are, or whatever it is you like to say to yourself after stalking and harassing me for two years. Qworty (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an genuinely sorry you feel like you are being harassed. As mentioned, that was never my intent. I don't think you'd have much luck "turning me in", but, that aside, I don't want to bother you, so hopefully all shall be good. - Bilby (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you be honest? Why did you go over and edit on the Janette Turner Hospital article? The only reason you edited over there was because you saw me editing there. You think we can discuss this without your even addressing that little inconvenient fact? This ugly behavior of yours has to stop. I'm tired of your monitoring my edits. That's exactly what you've been doing. Qworty (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't what I've been doing. Because of our run in years back, it seems your talk page was watchlisted. (I since removed it from my watchlist as I thought that would be better, given your concerns). The edit summary that WikiDao posted caught my attention, I looked at the article, found the case interesting and read the Gawker article. Then I left it, having watchlisted the article as a potential BLP problem, but not wanting to get involved as it seemed everything was in hand. My only involvement was a bit later when you added some content with significant BLP problems, and I felt that it would be wrong to let it sit.
Aside from that, I'm hoping that we can move on. My apologies, once again, for upsetting you, but I couldn't ignore what I felt was a BLP problem. Otherwise, I can honestly say that I have not been watching your edits, and that I wish you the best of luck with your editing. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

Do my recollections match yours, or am I off base? BOZ (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember much, as it was a while back. :) What I do recall is that there was a problem with overly-close paraphrasing, rather than plagarism, and that relates to copyvio. My assumption has been that Gavin wants to stick closely to sources, but may be erring by not sufficiently differentiating from the original in the wording - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His error in judgment seems to be widespread. BOZ (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for helping out with that - it looks like that was a gigantic mess! BOZ (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like helping out there - it tends to be left for Moonriddengirl and MER-C and only a few others, so I like to lend them a hand if I get the chance. Gavin hasn't been too unreasonable - there's been no attempt to hide the sources, just a strong tendency to use the original wording, rather than a claim to pass it off as his own. That makes fixing it relatively easy - some of the others have been much worse. :) Hopefully with so many people working on this it will be closed quickly. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Working on D&D articles

Hey there.  :) First of all, just want to let you know that we have a D&D TFA coming up for the 6th!

Just pointing you to this discussion; we're looking to get more articles improved, preferrably to GA or better. I know you have come through with sources before, so take a look and see if there's anything you can add. BOZ (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got a few reviews in there, check it out. :) BOZ (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you followed up on my progress? :) I've done quite a lot in the past month! BOZ (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An update from adopt a user

Hi there Bilby! You may be wondering, what have I done to sound the alarm this time? Nothing. I'm messaging you in regards to the adopt-a-user program, which currently has a backlog of users wishing to be adopted. This doesn't make much sense, as we have a considerable list of users offer adoption, so there shouldn't be any backlog. I've begun to eliminate this backlog myself through a matching program, but I need your help to make it work. Of course, adoptees and adopters don't have to go through there, but I believe it helps eliminate the backlog because someone is actively matching pairs.

On the list of adopters, I have modified the middle column to say "Interests." It's easier working with other users that have similar interests, so if it's not too much to ask, could you add your interests in the middle column? For example, if I was interested in hurricanes, computers, business, and ... reptiles? I would place those in the middle column. Counter-vandalism and the like can also be included (maintenance should be used as the general term). The more interests, the better, since adoptees can learn more about you and choose the one they feel most comfortable working with. The information about when you're most active and other stuff can go into the "Notes" section to the right.

Finally, I've gone around and asked adoptees (and will in the future) to fill in a short survey so adopters can take the initiative and contact users they feel comfortable working with. We all know that most adoptees just place the adopt me template on their user page and leave it - so it's up to us to approach them and offer adoption. So, please take a look at the survey, adopt those that fit your interests, and maybe watchlist it so you can see the interests of adoptees and adopt one that fits your interests in the future.

Once again, thank you for participating in the adopt-a-user program! If you wish to respond to this post, please message me on my talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Netalarm (talk) at 05:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at SirNameless's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

Possible stalking

You recently made an edit under Sex Pot and now since we have history and your from the same state as me and we do edits on AFL articles. I think your looking up my history. As I do not care about the edit but I do care about you not stalking me. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was really pleased that someone else seems interested in Asylum Pictures - they made the best version of War of the Worlds (well, out of the three that were released fairly recently, at any rate - George Pal's version is probably better). :) Yes, I checked up on your edits shortly after you came off the last block - I think you'll find that after some of the problems you've had, there's a couple of editors keeping half an eye on your edits. However, I assume that because nothing's shown up on your talk for a bit most of those problems are well in the past. - Bilby (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have only seen that film that was from Asylum and really loved it. Reminds me of Ferris Bueller's day off. Anyway, I don't like you being noisey and stalking me. I have noticed I do have trolling wikipedians after me and you being one of them doesn't help much. So I would like it if you don't look up my edits because I don't look into your bussiness. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if you've had some trouble, such as being blocked a few times, people will keep half an eye on you. This is to be expected. However, it only becomes a concern if they start blindly reverting or harassing. Generally your edits are sound - as I've said before - so I figure so long as you can avoid 3RR you should probably be ok. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like Sex Pot so much. Watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXPuA22VAkg GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's resident nagging missionary is here

( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mater Maria Catholic College

Hi Bilby. This is just to confirm, that the bus incident does not comply with Wikipedia policy about including items of trivial local news on pages that are supposed to be a basic description of a school. (See policy note at WP:NOTNEWS). Please continue your valued vigilance and help Wikipedia to comply with policy and keep an eye on the article to avoid any disruptive editing. Thanks--Kudpung (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC) :)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

The Signpost: 1 November 2010


Thanks for the undo on Canberra Raiders

Sorry i jumped the gun on the Canberra Raiders pages in reference to Joel leaving, I read the article on nrl.com and realised this and came back to change it myself, but you beat me to it. There should be a decision tomorrow in which I'll update it if need be then. Thomas-gough (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Intel Modular Server System

Hi Bilby,

   Please help to improve and wikify my article on the Intel Modular Server System, so that a repeat of the Cray CX1000 affair does not occur. I have avoided lists of specifications in order to avoid the unintended feel of advertising. If you think anything else should be removed, added, modified, etc., please do so. In addition, kindly inform anyone else who may have expertise for improvement of this article.

   Thanks. Rocketshiporion♫ 23:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rocketship, you deserve to have it deleted because you have learned so little from Cray CX1000. What about: incoming and outgoing wikilinks, external links demoted to the end of the article, wikimarkup - who else indents paragraphs? And above all evidence of notability. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 00:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Julia

Oh, alright. Thanks for the heads up. Eseress (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Thanks for looking after my userpage

~~~ has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!


Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}! 

Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 09:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Good call :> Doc talk 10:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Ganges RfC

You have refered to a RfC about Ganges[5], will you please provide link to it, I tried searching but could not find it. Thanks in anticipation. Again your suggestions in the same diff regarding the summary are valid, to have a format and rules for editing in the summary with word limit. Please comment on request made to you for anchoring the debate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are refering to the RfC I brought up. What about that? I've taken the tag off, as my concerns have been met.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the Ganges talk page for your explanation and comments etc, as other editors too are involved in the discussionYogesh Khandke (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Philip Wilson (archbishop)

Hi. A while ago you made a couple of notes in Philip Wilson (archbishop)#Alleged mishandling of sexual abuse of children. I've rewritten the section, and would be most grateful if you could have a quick look at the questions I've left on the talkpage and let me know what you think. Thanks!  -- Lear's Fool 13:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a proper look tomorrow, once the kids have done the presents thing, but at first glance it does appear to be a much needed improvement. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClaudioSantos

I have seen your warning on the talkpage of ClaudioSantos. I would like to inform you about Non-voluntary euthanasia where he is referring to "we" and "months ago" in the comment field while he is only active there for a few days. If put questions about that on the talkpage. Eddylandzaat (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only later I found a edit confirming he is using two identities at the same time, see here. I know the way on the Dutch Wikipedia, but here I'm still a stranger. No clue where to file a request for a checkuser. Eddylandzaat (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to file a formal complaint about this user. He seems to have a long history of agressively tendentious editing on these topics. He requires a topic ban, at the very least. TickleMeister (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and catch up with this and do what I can, but I'm a bit behind - I literally spent the last week at sea, and the only internet access I had was when we managed to be close enough to land for me to get a weak signal over the phone. :) It seems much has happened since then. - Bilby (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I hope the water was a bit warmer then I had at my Christmas Day Swim: 2.9 degrees Celsius. Eddylandzaat (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

You've got mail

Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Cheers! Davesmith au (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Good work on Euthanasia and the slippery slope

I award this Barnstar to Bilby for the great effort put into Euthanasia and the slippery slope

Thanks! TickleMeister (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pm-tells-it-as-she-sees-it-on-the-god-issue-20100629-zjad.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilby&oldid=406040292"