User talk:Bilby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Controversial Reddit communities[edit]

Afternoon, I would appreciate your input to an RFC introduced by an SPA relating to the inclusion of SRS in the "Controversial Reddit communities". SPA has canvassed to overturn 3 years of consensus on a 4 day vote. Koncorde (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

JarrahTree 13:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we have an Adelaide wikipedia meeting (in Rundle St) for the Friday night that JarrahTree is in town. If you object, please ping me. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Ping: User:JarrahTree; User:ScottDavis; User:Bilby
By-the-way: I tried to update the Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide, but I did something wrong. I'll sort it out tomorrow. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Turns out I will be in the city that afternoon anyway. I should be finished a bit after 7pm. My wife may finish at the same time or be busy until later. Either way, she could join us when she is finished too. --Scott Davis Talk 14:10, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll be there as well. - Bilby (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Comments at Gamergate Talk[edit]

Good morning! I certainly understand why you removed the recent comments on the talk page, and trust me, I am sympathetic. I don't think doing so was in any sense "wrong," but I'd like to suggest that we're better off leaving comments like that, distasteful though it may seem. I think this for a couple of reasons; one is simply that in my experience, the best way to expose bad arguments is to actually have them out in the open where people can engage with them. Secondly, I think by leaving such commentary up, there's a chance (however slight), that some of our interlocutors will stay around a bit and make contributions of value, rather than encouraging more drive-by allegations of bias when people don't see their views represented. Just thought I would drop that note! If you continue removals, I will be in no way aggrieved. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Quoted in the press[edit]

You might want to know that comments you made on Jimbo's talkpage were quoted in The Times of Israel. More info is at User talk:Smallbones. - Bri (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Evergreen College Protests[edit]


Does that look like a legitimate protest to you? Is that not threatening behavior? There's your sources! Stop undoing my edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

What matters is not what you perceive it to be, but what the sources report it as being. This has been described as a protest, the Day of Absence as voluntary, and that the protested demanded, but not that they threatened. Irrespective of how you feel about it, we don;t rely on our own opinions. - Bilby (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so blocking doors and refusing to allow faculty to leave and even openly saying so in the video, which is the legal definition of kidnapping and is a crime, is not threatening? How about threatening violence (openly) if the President didn't give in to their demands? I'm sorry, but you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, we don't rely on our interpretations, only what is in the sources. - Bilby (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting you say that, since the video shows it all, plain as day. Not biased news articles, not hear-say... actual video in its entirety. But whatever, I have pretty much determined at this point that you are yet another person who would rather censor the truth to protect political bias. Good thing the article was locked at this point so you can't change any more history. -- (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this text was not close to a copyright violation. You removed it claiming it was then replaced it with rephrased text excluding the Manweller quote, which itself could not have been a copyright violation. If you had another reason for removing it you never gave it. It is not constructive to revert multiple editors, consistently (you've reached 3RR) without clear explanation or consensus. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The text was very similar to the source, and given that prior version that was a violation, it makes it appear to be overly close and derivative. There was no need for the quote. - Bilby (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The source:

A Washington State lawmaker wants to pull funding from Evergreen State College and make it a private institution.

The removed "copyright violation" text:

Following the protests, Washington State Legislative Representitive Matt Manweller R-Ellensburg, introduced legislation to revoke funding for Evergreen State College and make it a private institution.

Your replacement text:

In response to the protests, Republican Matt Manweller introduced a bill to remove funding from the college.

I see no way to convey the same information (remove funding and make private) with text substantially different than the removed text. Your solution was to remove the "private institution" comment. This removes information, it does not address copyright. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Where we start from a copyrighted text, and then visibly reorganise parts of it, we create the appearance of a derivative work, which is still a potential copyright violation. Given that it is always easy to fully reword text, this is typically the best choice.
In this case, my wording states who created the bill and that the goal is to remove funding. I'm happy to look for alternative wording, but it is safer to keep it just a step further removed from the original. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
As did the wording I restored. If you have serious concerns I believe the place to address them would be Wikipedia:Copyright problems James J. Lambden (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point regarding derivative wording. I might be being a bit overly cautious, but it isn't a big deal to change the wording a bit more to avoid any concerns. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Maryann Keller[edit]

Hi Bilby, Can you help address the issues raised by the warning tag in the article "Maryann Keller" here: . Thanks a lot for your time and help. Cutie girly (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

One week?[edit]

Greetings. A few minutes ago I blocked the vandal that we have both been cleaning up after: based on the rather extreme nature of their edits, and the fact that they were clearly biding their time until launching this assault, I indeffed them as WP:NOTHERE. You then modified this to a one week block. Could you please explain? Vanamonde (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Never mind: I see you self-reverted. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, we had a block conflict. I didn't even know we could do that. :) I blocked for a week as an emergency measure so I could fully look into their other edits before deciding on indef, but because we both did it at almost the same time, my block was a bit later and overrode yours. I went back to check their talk page and saw the double message so I worked out what had happened, and changed it back to the indef block. - Bilby (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Huh, interesting, I didn't know that could happen either, though I did have a protect conflict once. Multiple pages they edited were on my watchlist, and so I saw multiple edits at once: which convinced me to indef. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I was a bit more limited, as I'm working off an iPad at a meet up. Thus I went for a quick response to stop damage until I could look into the history. I'm glad you were watching them and handled it so quick. - Bilby (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not in Citation Given[edit]


You recently made an edit, re Not in Citation Given (Fv tag). I tried reading what it means & from my understanding it means that the citation given doesn't really back what's said in the sentence?

Case in Point Zunera has also covered and participated in New York Fashion Week.[1]

Now that I read it, I know the sentence really doesn't seem to sit well with the contents of the citation. The subject was covering the NYFW but not AT NYFW. I thought adding this information will further add the to fashion blogger prowess and its an ABC News link so it will add to the notability hence its a reliable source.

What do you suggest we remove the sentence & citation or just leave it as is? I mean please advice what should I do in light of the tag you added?Thecapital15 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


@Bilby: Hey can you kindly respond to my query above? Thecapital15 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Block question[edit]

I just saw a block that confused me. You blocked User:Ocrot on June 12, 2017 for block evasion as a sock of User:Nmwalsh, who had been blocked on November 29, 2016 for three months. But User:Ocrot wasn't created until May 16, 2017, long after those three months were over. What gives? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking because an article User:Ocrot created is currently being discussed at AfD. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought we'd indeffed Nmwalsh. It isn't block evasion, then, but sockpuppetry. Nmwalsh is a paid editor who was blocked for using socks to evade detection, and it seems still uses them for the same reason. - Bilby (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

About Erika Lemay[edit]

Hi Bilby, why you tagged Erica Lemay article with COI template? I don´t know her, I only saw her in Cirque du Soleil and thought that an international artist like her could have her page on Wikipedia .. even thought to translate it into Spanish. Do you think the article should be more neutral? --Ane wiki (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This seems unlikely. Based on your recent editing, there seems to be a valid concern that this is a paid article. - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Based on my "recent editing"? can you be more specific? Anyway, Erika Lemay is an international artist, thousands of people have seen her as a guest at Cirque du Soleil, the article could have been done by anyone with the information that is online.--Ane wiki (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
True, it could have been. But in this case it seems unlikely. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


  • Bilby, would you care to present evidence for your accusation of paid editing by Ane wiki, preferably in the form of diffs? Otherwise this is Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Note that ARBCOM has said "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. Editors are however reminded that Wikipedia places importance on the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence; it requires that Wikipedians must take care not to reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer to Wikipedia:Checkuser." Thus it is not enough for you to make and repeat such accusations, nor to place a COI tag on an article, without some evidence. That Ane wiki has done paid editing in the past, and has declared it, does not demonstrate that all future edits by this editor are paid. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I have strong evidence. But it can wait. - Bilby (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would point out that WP:ADMINACCT says that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." I suggest that it is needed here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I do appear to have replied to you promptly. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I think that came off as a bit short. My apologies. The reason I don't want to pursue this at the moment is that it seems that there is a bigger problem than I initially pictured. I was hoping that simply posting the tag would be enough to quietly prompt the editor, rather than making something bigger of it, but that doesn't seem to have worked. I can post evidence, but doing so risks creating problems for the editor. Thus I was hoping something simpler would solve the problem. It never seems to work, but I'm hoping to find a way of convincing editors to follow the ToU without just ending up with an indef.
However, since looking at this originally, there seems to be a more expensive problem than I expected, so I'm going to have to make sure I have all my ducks in a row. Thus I'd rather step back from this for now while I look into it further. - Bilby (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes you did respond promptly, It was the "...justify them when needed." that I was asking for. However, i will respect your desire to wait until your evidence is properly in order. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the tag from the article for the time being. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
In removing the tag, do you feel that the article is a neutral depiction of the subject? If so, I'm happy to see the tag removed. - Bilby (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
A COI tag is not the same thing as an NPOV tag. If the writing is non-neutral (as by a fan), the latter is proper. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The tag reads "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." It doesn't say that the user is a paid editor, but that their are concerns, and that those concerns may have resulted in problems with the neutrality of the article. The easiest fix is to confirm that the article is neutral, and then the potential COI is not an issue.. - Bilby (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Virto Commerce[edit]

Hi Bilby, I have added the tag "connected contributor" on Virto Commerce talk page, I think this should resolve the "conflict of interest". Also, the article contains active and reliable references to the content present which point to the websites other than the website of virtocommerce, are you sure it needs cleanup? Thanks, Pranav011 03:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranav011 (talkcontribs)


Hi, Bilby, I'm Mark member of Jesus Miracle Crusade, would like to inform you that, as a member of this church, I want to improve our Church information here in Wikipedia, kindly help me if how can i edit and put only an authentic information about our church? based on our official websites.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcim1975 (talkcontribs) 06:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

Margieth (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Babes (band)[edit]

Hey, just wondering what the COI tag was put onto this article for. I removed it for now, I couldn't find anything that suggest conflict of interest editing. We can continue discussing this on the article's talk page. —Formal Dude (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)