Wikipedia

User talk:Bilby/Archive 4

< User talk:Bilby
Latest comment: 15 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 01:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 07:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

National War Memorial

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Comments on your latest edits:

Regarding this change:

  • Of the 30,000 South Australians who served overseas, over 5,000 died.
  • Of those who served, over 5,000 South Australians died.
  1. The two statements are not mathematically identical - you need to be a bit careful. What exactly did Scott and Jeffery say?
  2. The previous sentence says 35,000 served in total. This sentence used to say 30,000 served overseas. That in itself is an interesting statistic. Why did you decide to remove it?
  3. Note that I acknowledge that mathematically it is accurate - if "over 5,000 out of 30,000 died", then "over 5,000 out of 35,000 died" - but it's less precise and less informative.
  • Suggestion:
    • First choice: Almost 35,000 South Australians served in the First World War. This number amounted to 8.5% of the South Australian population at the time, or 37.7% of men between the ages of 18 and 44. Of the 30,000 who served overseas, over 5,000 died.
    • Second choice: Almost 35,000 South Australians served in the First World War. This number amounted to 8.5% of the South Australian population at the time, or 37.7% of men between the ages of 18 and 44. Of those who served overseas, over 5,000 died.
  • I wonder what percetage of the 5,000 who didn't go overseas died in the period? (Yes, I know, ALL 35,000 died - eventually.)

Regarding the passage of the bill through parliament:

  • "With the passing of this motion":
  • a) To be pedantic, there were two motions - one in each house.
  • b) The motions would have each been 'a motion to "blah blah blah"'. It's probably worth checking Hansard to see what the wording of the montions were.

I suspect that is was NOT "With the passing of this motion (these motions), the South Australian Government became the first in Australia to elect to build ... "

  • I suspect that "passing the motions" wasn't the allowing factor. I suspect that the passage of the bill through parliament, and it being signed off by the Governor, was the allowing factor. (But I an NOT a parliamentry legal expert!!)
  • I don't think that the word "elect" ("the South Australian Government ... to elect to build ... ") is quite right. I'm not sure what the "right" word is, but now that you have removed "decision" from the previous sentence, using "decide" would be much better than "elect".
  • (Of no real importance, but why did you remove the word "both"?)

You seem to use "South Australian government" and "South Australian parliament" interchangeably. They are not the same thing. You should probably review usage of these terms to check that you are using the right one for the circumstances of the sentence in which it is appearing.

I'd say your Easter target date is still looking good. Good luck! (Don't forget to ask if you want any help.) Pdfpdf (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You're right, and I should be able to make the changes for the next attempt. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Dietrich v The Queen

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Might need help on this FAR. Not sure where to look for sources on this. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look around. It seems I'll find FAR easier than FAC. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just about finished with the Illawarra Steam Navigation Company GAR, so I should be able to start on this new one this week. - Bilby (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Steamship company

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I actually took a look at this last night (while I was delisting something else) to see how it was going and I saw that you had been making edits to the page and decided to leave it until you were ready. Thanks for keeping me posted, the review can run as long as needed as long as someone is interested in improving the article. Let me know when you feel it is ready and I'll give it another look.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! A massive improvement, very well done. Take as long as you need and let me know when you are done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


   — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
For amazing improvements to Illawarra Steam Navigation Company, thus saving its GA status, I award Bilby the original barntar. --Jackyd101 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your brilliant improvement of this article - vey impressive.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) I really enjoyed working on that one - I'll need to do the occasional maritime article in the future. - Bilby (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
How are you going with Dietrich v The Queen. I'm the FAR closer nowadays, although I'll be recusing from that one. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Well. :) I finally have all the sources lined up in a row, and have read them properly so I know what's going on. Coincidentally, I was just working on it, so I'm down to the last two sections. The judgement should be easy, but the consequences is a tad harder - everything that is there can be sourced, but it is missing a lot of significant developments as a result of the case, so I'll need to spend some time expanding it for completeness. - Bilby (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh, you may have gotten all the books I wanted by the looks of things :) I could only find one or two left on the subject up on level 5. Daniel (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I just had some luck with searches. It isn't really my field, though, so luck was all I had to go by. Anything you can do to improve things would be much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I should nom all thos Australian FAs with citation problems that I haven't been able to fix myself... fauna of Australia and Liberal Movement are now the two most weakly cited, from memory.

Thanks again sir, while the law books might be open Al-Kateb v Godwin is now at the bottom of the Australian vulnerables list....YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


NG Archive

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am sorry I got impatient and removed a lot of trashy bits of the NG talk page. I realise it is not the way it should be done- in fact, they were issues that had been resolved etc, but I am happy to follow proceedures, as has been done in the past- I looked at the Archive page you linked to and it looked a bit overwhelming. I am sure the page needs doing, but I don't understand it all, including these options it talks of. Could you assist, please? IceDragon64 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Where can I see the number of hits per Wikipedia article?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Where can I see the number of hits per Wikipedia article? I have to ask you after your comment on Inflation. PennySeven (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Very revealing numbers!! PennySeven (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflation RM

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Inflation. The article has been moved again so, if you care to clarify of reiterate your position, please participate at Talk:Inflation (financial)#Requested move: part 2. — AjaxSmack 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Comp Photo

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Great job on the Sydney Sports Ground comp photo. Do you want to put it on here too ? -Sticks66 11:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's a good idea - I've added it there. - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Buttons

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please adopt me - I am Doctorbas. My first question will be: What is the purpose and use of the icon above (6th from left) "Embedded file"? I hope it will produce an internal link to a text file which I plan to construct. Thank you.Doctorbas (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your participation in my recent Request for adminship. Good to hear from you, it's been awhile since we interacted on any significant level! How's it going? I've been a busy guy in real life, but you probably noticed in the RfA that I've been working on GAs a lot this year. I know you were interested in D&D subjects in the past, so I'll mention that I've helped put Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants up to GA! Next target will be Dave Arneson, and then probably Drow (Dungeons & Dragons). Come swing by the D&D project talk page if you're interested in seeing what's going on!

I don't know if you're also interested in comic books, but we've also been busy there with our own GA drive as well, so far meeting success with Spider-Man, Spider-Man: One More Day, Silver Age of Comic Books, Alex Raymond, Winnie Winkle, LGBT themes in comics, Hergé, and Pride & Joy (comics).

Hope all is well with you, and hope to see you around more. :) Happy editing! BOZ (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I'd noticed the great work you'd been doing. It was great to see your RfA - I keep a general eye on it, but I have a policy of only voting if either I know the editor so feel I'm qualified to draw an opinion, or, very rarely, if I have the chance to look into their editing to make an informed decision. It was great to see someone who I both knew and who I desperately wanted to support - you'll make a great admin. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Article on Mini K. Philip

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You removed a prod tag from this article. If you explore the comments of User:C K Luckose and the user page you can see that this user is most likely a puppet of User:Kuntan. Verify his comments on my talk page accusing me of creating it after he himself created the page! So I persumed him to be a puppet of User:Kuntan. In any case, this page was created on a person of not much significance as it is evident from the links that the creator has provided. His main citation is from the party website. So I request your advice on how to recommend this page for a delete?--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't see any really solid evidence of a connection between User:C K Luckose and User:Kuntan, and there are no messages on your talk page by User:C K Luckose (there is an IP, but I'd be inclined to suggest they are different people). Given that the checkuser was declined, I would recommend either that you find better evidence regarding C K Luckose, which would probably mean stepping back and waiting until an editing pattern emerges, or let it sit. In terms of the article, the subject seems to be of minimal notability at best, but there is an assertion in the article, so CSD probably isn't appropriate. Given that it is just a stub, unless there's a pressing reason for deletion, I'd suggest leaving it tagged for a few weeks to see if someone develops the article, and, if not, look at taking it to AfD once it has had some time. - Bilby (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

accidental revert?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think you accidentally reverted NYB on the arbitration workshop. Thus, I rolled back your reversion. If you edit was not an error, please talk to Newyorkbrad rather than reverting him. Thxbye, Jehochman Talk 01:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 03:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Im responding

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

im responding to attacks made by yellow monkey and wikireader41 they dont seem to mind so whats your problem? 86.158.176.40 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

this banned user nangparbat. he is one of the worst wikivandals. please ignaore his ignorant rants.Wikireader41 (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Shall do. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you have time, I'd appreciate your looking in at Horror film genre-specifc reliable sources and either advise or contribute. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Leslie

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I made one or two draft attempts to respond to Mark Hurd's argument at that AfD: "Also any "harm" was done by the media then". While I believe that there was in fact harm done (using inverted commas tends to suggest that Mark feels no harm was done) and that a Wikipedia article will cause further harm. Media interest is transitory and populist by nature, Wikipedia articles are in contrast supposed to be written for posterity. From Wikipedia:Avoiding harm (an essay) "As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity" I said at Corey Delaney discussion, "as a project we are aiming at a higher ethical standard than the press and wire services, all attempting to meet deadlines and generate content."

While your argument that an NPOV article that provides context would be a positive for the subject is worthy, to me it has several flaws; the biggest being I believe it is impossible to write an article in this case that does not cause further harm. Merely mentioning her arrest and trail is likely to continue to cause the subject additional harm, no matter the motives for doing so. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Another article for the FAR doctor

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

Cane toad YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

anything happening ?? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've chipped in. The second book in the article list seems very detailed but not available to me. Is it at your uni? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I've had organising a conference dropped on me at the last minute, so I've been falling behind on stuff I actually like doing. :) No, we don't have it here, but I've been able to track down a copy elsewhere, which I'll grab in the next couple of days. It would be nice to do some researching instead of panicking. - Bilby (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, Lake Burley Griffin is under the hammer as well. It would be good to keep our successful defensive streak going! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Help YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shall do. I promise to work on them over the weekend - I lost the last week running a major convention, but I now, at long last, have a life again. Which I propose to subsequently give up for Wikipedia. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I just googled you and saw.... Hmm I should pop in to your office some day YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Ah. So you discovered that I'm a world famous saxophonist? I'd always wanted to be known for my piano accordion, but so be it. :) Feel free to stop by - I'm down at City West, so it is pleasantly accessible, but it's worth checking if I'm in, as I still have the odd teaching committment and meeting over the break. On the article front: Lake Burley Griffin looks fairly easy, given the great work that has already been done. I'll see if I can help there once I've given Cane toad a shot. On Cane toad, I think I have the remaining sources lined up, but I spent about three hours today getting the referencing up to MoS standards, only to loose the work when my computer died. (I don't like hundreds of little updates with my name attached in the page history, so I took the gamble). I back on it now, and should bring referencing in line shortly. I'm checking each reference, fixing formating, and I may try consolidating them at bit as I go. My feeling is that it shouldn't be too hard to bring back to FA standard, once the MoS issues are fixed, as there's plenty of reference material to build on. - Bilby (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep. It should be quite historic, a meeting between two giant animals of Australia.....Yes, the FAs should be quite doable! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about the merge? I think the content should be in there although not the pop culture YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven't made it far enough down the article to think about it. :) I agree in regard to the pop culture - while interesting, the pop culture lists always seemed tacked on and ugly with otherwise good articles. In regard to remerging, I guess it will depend a bit on what I can dig up with other introductions - if there's enough to balance it then merging may make a lot of sense. That's looking promising now - I just dug up a beautiful article from 1981 detailing the introduction of the cane toad into various regions, that should allow that section to expand considerably. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Club Penguin (again, sorry)

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If you have the time Bilby, can you quickly go though the Club Penguin page? I think someone fiddled around and kinda mucked up the "flow" of the article that you kindly helped us to get to GA. Thanks. --Vinni3 (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I keep meaning to go back and help with that article, and see if you and I can push it up to FA one day. I'm caught up a bit in teaching, but I'll do my best to stop by, even if it may not be in the next couple of days - I enjoy the subject, as both my children play Club Penguin now, and I use it as an example in lectures. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be impossible, and even I have got caught up in work. If you cant stop by due to real life commitments: don't worry. FA seems impossible with the lack of editors. --Vinni3 (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Diamonddannyboy and Darren M. Jackson

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Diamonddannyboy (talk · contribs) is back and your input would be much appreciated on his additions. He e.g. said you had seen a document sourcing that there was a debate between Jackson and Howard Stoate. Cheers, --aktsu (t / c) 07:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Questia

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion

Could you get chapter 2 and 3 of this book please? [2] YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem, but not, I'm afraid, for a day or two - I'm going to be heavily caught up in things until Friday night. Hopefully that's ok. - Bilby (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No that's great. Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of exams to mark and students asking questions? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Something even worse - my supervisor showed up and needed to hear about progress on my thesis. :) I've got it now - I'll send the chapters your way tomorrow. - Bilby (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought you already had a PhD YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. I'm doing one of those staff PhDs - I'm well published, and full time as an academic, but haven't finished it off yet. I should have one in a few months though. :) btw, I hadn't sent your text yet, as I'm lost in writing stuff on the Cane Toad - I'm almost there at last. :) The book you suggested by Lever was wonderful, and is sufficient to finish it off. I'm just rewriting the introductions section, then I'll tackle the biology, and that should see it back to FA, all going well. - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks great! Lake Burley Griffin should be done now, barring a copyedit/MOS and whatnot YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Marvellous! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, those novel uses to cane toads YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I thought so. :) There was even a warning that the cane toad-based fertilizer was inclined to explode, but I couldn't see how to work that into the article.
btw, could you sen an email my way? I have your chapters here, but I can't send attachments using the Wikipedia's email, and it is a tad long for a cut and paste. - Bilby (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Emailed! YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Received. Thanks a lot. Pity, they just don't have a readymade PDF :( YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Bilby! I didn't understand your comment on the edits on the Axelsson page. What did you mean by "Readded?" What do you mean by "seems notable?" Thanks! Properly Raised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.52.13.104 (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • You had removed slightly more than I felt was needed, so I put back the information that they were going to appeal, although I didn;t alter any of your other changes. From my perspective, I'm interested in what they intend to do in regard to the will, so their intent to appeal it seems worth covering. - Bilby (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Hope your day is a good one. ProperlyRaised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.52.13.103 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Cane toad

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

One of Jk's queries is still outstanding YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume you mean the cane toad/cane toads issue? In which case I'll fix it now. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol another couple of FARs. Kylie, and the Winter Olympics. WP:AWNB/A I'm on the latter YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at them if I get the chance - I've just been told that I have to write a book chapter in the next 5 weeks, so I'll be focusing a bit more on that. At least Wikipedia should have been good practice for it. :) (Chapters are much more annoying than papers, and count for less - but at least I get a free book out of it). - Bilby (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I should nominate some Australian ones for you then :P YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[3] I'm glad to bring some delight into your day or week or whatever. Yeah, I thought it was pretty funny, too. I had thought of notifying editors that were aware of the problems with WMC and the "cabal," but ... would this be canvassing? I'm actually pretty conservative, it just looks otherwise. So Boris's action was perfect. Of course, I had to protest, isn't that how the game is played? (By the way, everything I wrote was sincere, I'm aware that my contributions are watched closely, so I have to add that!) There is another aspect that is even funnier: [4]. If you don't get the joke, look at the preceding edits on that page. Keystone Cops. Definitely, there is a cabal, in terms of effect, but also, definitely -- and fortunately -- this one, at least, isn't consciously coordinated. That will happen, I predict, and we'd better be ready for it, otherwise, the community is a bunch of sitting ducks. It could be practically undetectable. There are certain Wikipedia traditions that are some level of protection, but the protections aren't adequately protected, themselves, and they are being eroded. --Abd (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Following on from our discussions about the provenance of sourced content in the article Kender, what do you think of the concerns raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/TRANSWIKI#Major_concerns? Am I talking rubbish or do I have some valid points? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look asap - I've got a couple of desperate work-related tasks to clean up, then I'll sit down and read this through. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

+

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Article Rescue Barnstar
Awarded to Bilby for saving multiple Australian FAs in 2009: Cane toad and Dietrich v The Queen YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Although, as per normal, you had an awful lot to do with it. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

GLAM

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Teh comp seemed a bit sparse.... YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - the reason I joined was that I thought it might help with numbers, but in the end they probably didn't get the numbers they warranted. - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well you should win then... and send it to FAC YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I figure your work is as deserving as mine, and I don't really mind either way - I just figured it would be a nice way to help out, and the topic appealed at the time. I wish I could have attended, but I have too many classes on Fridays. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone got one, due to demand and supply. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Works for me. btw, I might send the article to GAN some time, but I'm not horribly fond of FAC - I'm happiest at FAR. I hope to be useful there again soonish, as my chapter is due in two weeks, so I'll be good after that. - Bilby (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I should nominate some Australian ones for you then :P; Kylie and the Winter Olympics look almost done YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 05:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Quick

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

[5], er, why?

The newsletter source is reasonably reliable, as reliable as the gossip column that is the source for the present husband, the "producer." This was being discussed in Talk, and, until you came along, the only editor supporting the removal of this source, persistently (Syrthiss withdrew his objections and suggested editing more or less along the lines I implemented), was KeltieMartinFan.

You are correct. The newsletter is not necessary for the text. However, sources aren't only for verification of specific facts, but also for further research. We have two sources for the name of the husband: the other gossip column source, and this newsletter. Keltie started removing all this stuff, but didn't remove the "producer" stuff, quite a while back. The arguments shifted, first it was this reason, then that. There is clearly an agenda being pursued, this isn't about content or BLP policy.

What using the newsletter source accomplishes is to balance the gossip column source for the husband. The first husband's name and a photo of him and Quick together are in the newsletter. The present husband's name is in the gossip column. It's balanced, neither husband is given undue weight. None of this is defamatory. The New York Times article establishes the basic fact underlying what the second source for that confirms, i.e., the first marriage to a computer programmer.

Before this, the article was probably incorrect, it's quite likely that Quick doesn't live where she lived when she was married to her first husband. (But we don't know where she *does* live, now, at least I don't.)

I'd say that if we are going to use the gossip column for the second husband, we'd have to allow the newsletter for the first. In fact, that newsletter is a source for the other gossip column! They are explicit about it.

Otherwise if we disallow the newsletter source, we'd do one of two things: use the gossip column based on it, which establishes some level of notability, or remove the similar source for the second husband, leaving us no reliable source for that fact, unless something better can be found.

Thanks for considering this. KMF has been long-term edit warring over this, and that will have to be addressed. --Abd (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with the article mentioning that she was previously married, and it was fine that you added that. As you pointed out at the time, the New York Times source mentions both this fact and that her husband was a computer programmer. As the text you added reflects this, and nothing more, then the NYT source is perfectly sufficient for the article, and there's no need for anything else.
The only additional information that the newsletter could add was the name of her husband, which wasn't being used in the article, and I'd lean towards saying that it probably shouldn't be. So the newsletter adds nothing significant, and unless you wanted to make a case for adding her ex husband's name, it won't be able to add anything significant. On top of that, the newsletter is a self-published source, so isn't considered reliable. I think we can reasonably assume that a newsletter could stuff up a name here or there, or even the marital status of someone, whereas I'm somewhat more confident of NYT. :)
That said, I think you're right about the use of Gawker. I kind of like Gawker, but I don't think it is particularly reliable. Perhaps it would be best if I removed that as a source as well. Maybe there's something better that can be used? - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's something better to use: http://www.nypost.com/seven/01252009/business/fuld_hides_home_151983.htm
162.6.97.3 (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a ood compromise. - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Drop bears

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Well I never! I didn't know Polar bears could climb trees. You learn something new every day. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, trees are uncommon in the artic circle, otherwise I fear the penguin population would be decimated. - Bilby (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Or failing that, squashed (by descending bears) ... Pdfpdf (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
  The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Issue 1 (September 2009)

Content


Proposed deletion of ICROA

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

The article ICROA has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable trade association

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Orange Mike | Talk 13:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Bilby,

Is this the article you meant? Actually it's just a brief section in "Feedback", and as such there is no identified author. Most of it is in the link. Basically he'd won the first round in what could well turn out to be a long, drawn-out battle.

If you want to see the article, UniSA library in City East (also Mawson Lakes and Magill) keep copies of NS. The call number is PER 505 N558 and the volume number (at least at City East) is 167. You might find a bit of blue plastic that I left as a bookmark... In any case, the edition is 2 Sep 2000, and Feedback is opposite the inside back cover. Pingku (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychosurgeons

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No that's fine, I wasn't sure about it myself and thought it might be borderline notable - and perhaps more for the Lipstick Killers incarnation than the first name? Black Kite 12:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Bilby, I know you are being a good egg, but the Carina Axelsson page really should be pared down. The articles that are quoted in the references in your latest versions are basically Europe's versions of the National Enquirer or at best, In Touch. The versions that I have put out are dull, I admit, but devoid of breathless gossip. (One of the articles even says that she has trouble learning English, which considering that she was born and raised in California, including graduating from high school, strains credulity.)

I've been working a lot on the various minor nobility and linkages, and if I send you this link, I think you'lll get the idea of how complicated it is: http://www.angelfire.com/in/heinbruins/Sayn.html (I'm a very minor contributor to that, too.)

Much of the deliberation around the will of the grandfather is highly speculative; no one has actually seen it other than the parties involved (with the court system being different than ours and less transparent) and the articles quoted are just about as accurate as the ones about Brangelina breaking up while having babies with six heads.

NY Times, sure. Amazon, sure. She's a model and an author. The rest, no matter how it is sliced diced and presented, is gossip and vanity press releases reworked into questionable modes of delivery (like the National Enquirer is.)

I'm not going to arbitrarily revert what you did without letting you know the why.

Best to you, PR (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! In relation to the sources being used, the strength required for sources is dependent on the types of claims being made. So if there are contentious claims we need strong sources, while less contentious claims have a bit more leeway. Based on what you said above, there should be no problem with anything related to her career, as all of that is relativly minor and not really an issue. Similarly, her relationship with Prince Gustav isn't a problem, as that seems well established, at least as far as being his girlfrind goes. Naturally, a stronger claim, such as saying that they are secretly engaged, would need stronger sources than those being used currently, (and this is probably why the claim isn't made in the article in spite of the existance of sources that make it, such as this one). Given this, I presume that your problem is squarely with the account of the will. I can see your point, but I guess the question is how contentious the claim is? Online it seems to be a given that they aren't getting married because of the conditions imposed in the will, and we have multiple published sources that support this view, so I don't see it as particularly problematic. That said, the closest thing I can find to a definitive answer is a partial interview where she makes mention of difficulties, but she doesn't expand on this even though the author does. Maybe some alternative wording would be better? - Bilby (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, I'm going to do some edits in there. The problem about the will is while there are multiple sources for its discussion, there is nothing that is *not* wordpress, or blogs, or other non-independently researched articles which have been published that can back that up. (svenskdam is generally a nice picture site with essentially press release material published, for instance.) I have many different dates for when it should have gone to court, and it may have already gone to court and may be in the appeals process. Similar wills have been upheld in the very recent past, particularly in the Salm and Leinengen Houses as recently as December 2008. I have been trying to write an appropriately referenced article about this for some time, and it's not happening; in fact, most of what is in Wiki about the will is my authoring that I have not been able to source outside of the frothy pink press, which is why I'm editing the heck out of it. Let me take a run at it and if you're up for it, we can collaborate. Best to you, PR PR (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that, while I disagree that the question of the will lacks sufficiently reliable sources, I'm happy if that stays out 'til we get something more definitive. However, my point above was that the other claims are suffciently sourced - we don't need much to say that she's in a relationship with the prince (and, indeed, we have her own words to use on that), nor that she's published three books, was a model, spent time studying in Paris, or was raised in California. Those points are sufficiently solid and don't need to rely on blogs for their support, as well as being suffidciently ordinary that we don't need fantastic sources to justify them. - Bilby (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think it's at a point where it's very factual and not hyperbolic. I wish I had better sources on the will but I don't. I remain really skeptical about the foreigh publications, as they really are along the lines of public relations/glossy pics/pretty people/vapid and unresearched articles, but hey, it pays their bills. Be well, Bilby, see you around the quad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProperlyRaised (talk • contribs) 16:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GLAM

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

??? You didn't get one? If so that sucks. One of the eclectic things was a book of pictures of clothes with comments by Lee Lin Chin! YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was pleased to see that you won - you did great work on those articles. :) Congratulations! - Bilby (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ape index

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Excellent work. Thank you. --TS 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although I'm still undecided on the merger suggestion, as I dont yet know the extent of the term/ratio outside of rock climbing. The article as it stood was awful, though, and clearly warranted AfD. - Bilby (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: studies using the ape index as a variable

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I can't find the study you added to the ape index article here. In fact, I only found three articles ever published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise about the physiology of rock climbers, and none of them use the term ape index. Could you please go back and check the dates for me? Ottre 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I forgot to add that it was in the supplement to the May 2001 edition. The page number hinted at that, but I've made it clearer in the ref, and added a link. It is a poster, rather than an article, but as posters are still peer reviewed I normally accept them as an RS so long as the claims aren't particularly strong. Oddly, there are no DOIs for that issue for some reason - I suspect they didn't start using them until more recently.
btw, thanks for converting to Harvard - I much prefer that as well, especially as the reference list gets longer, but I sometimes get concerned about whether or not other editors are comfortable using harvnb, and I've encountered opposition to it before. It works much better, though, and I'd use it in preference to anything else. :)
Thanks for that. I use the HW Wilson database, and I guess they don't index every supplement. They do have the one from June 2001, but that's like thirty pages long.
I don't get why so many people dislike Harvard references. I quote a lot from tv documentaries, and a blue link clearly indicates when something is taken from a written source. Ottre 03:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I used Ovid for that one - I don't normally, but it proved to be ok. And no, I don't understand it either - admittedly, in my field harvard in-line references are required for all publications, so I may be biased, but they work well and are wmuch better if you need to reference a work more than once. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up,

I added a general interest ref to your essay on Academics and Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind. I've been wanting to use that quote somewhere for a couple of weeks now. Ottre 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, and much appreciated. :) The essay is extremely rough - I'e been thinknig for a while about the issue of academic involvement in Wikipedia, so this seemed like a good thing to play with during practicals while I'm waiting for students to start throwing questions my way. Unfortunately, as of late they've had a lot of questions. - Bilby (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for reverting this edit. I'm having a few problems with Huggle. I'll miss some vandalism, click to go on, Huggle stalls and doesn't move on, I revert and warn what's on my screen, Huggle then spings to life, moves on and warns the next non-vandal user. Thanks again! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 14:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC):N

No problem - I noticed you'd been doing anti-vandal work, so I figured it was along those lines. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I too say thanks. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
No hassles. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:INCUBATOR

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

the second incubator medal:

 


...and the second award ever for the incubator project. look at the top of your page, thanks for your work on Eddie Kilroy.Ikip (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's way cool. :) Thanks! I rather like the idea of the Incubator, and hope that it succeeds. - Bilby (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Infoboxes

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion
River Cess County
County
 
Location in Liberia
Country  Liberia
CapitalCesstos City
Districts6
Government
 • SuperintendentB. Rancy Ziankahn
Area
 • Total
5,594 km2 (2,160 sq mi)
 • RankRanked 8th in Liberia
Population
 (2008)
 • Total
65,862
 • RankRanked 14th in Liberia
 • Density11.8/km2 (31/sq mi)
Time zoneUTC+0 (GMT)
ISO 3166 code-2:LR
{{Infobox Liberia County
| Fullname       = River Cess County
| Name           = River Cess 
| Flag           = 
| FlagSize       = 
| Motto          = 
| Map            = Liberia-Rivercess-new.png
| MapSize        = 200px
| Languages      = 
| Demonym        = 
| Capital        = [[River Cess|Cesstos City]]
| LargestCity    = 
| Coordinates    = {{coord|6|00|N|9|20|W|region:LR_type:adm1st|display=inline,title}}
| Districts      = 6
| Area           = {{convert|5594|km2|mi2}}
| AreaRank       = 8<sup>th</sup>
| Latitude       = 6° N
| Longitude      = 9° 20′ W
| PopRank        = 14<sup>th</sup>
| 2008Pop        = 65,862
| 2008Density    = {{convert|11.8|PD/sqkm}}
| HighestPoint   =
| HighestElev    =
| LowestPoint    =
| LowestElev     =
| Created        = 
| Superintendent = B. Rancy Ziankahn
| TimeZone       = [[Greenwich Mean Time|GMT]]
| TZ1Where       =
| TimeZone2      =
| TZ2Where       =
| ISOCode        = RI
| Website        =
| Footnotes      =
| Image          =
| ImageSize      =
| Caption        =
}}

Your continued disruption over TFD because of Australia is quite frankly pathetic as is the way you have all ganged up on other templates which do not evne display things like timezone which I am improving. If those templates had not been nominated I would still be doing my work cleaning these articles up. I will continue to revert your edits. You have no right to revert good edits to articles and neither is there any law which says you can't edit an article if they are sbuject to TFDs. Please stop wasting my time and do something to improve your Austrlian small town stubs instead. Himalayan 15:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As I started this discussion on your talk, it is probably best if we continue it there. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussions will not fairly run their course because 99% of the people commenting them are there because they are angry about their own project templates being nominated. I edit hundreds of African articles every week and have done a hell of a lot of work cleaning up articles and standardising things as well as referencing them. I have never seen you ever edit an African article on wikipedia so to say you know exactly what you are talking about with countries like Liberia.... WHo do you think the guy is who tries hard to add maps and data to articles and fleshing out some of our Africa/Asian place stubs. There is no justification for you being involved in this other than trying to prove a point to Andy. All of my edits are constructive and in good faith, there is nothing concerning about it. Himalayan 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The idea is not so people see it unused and think oh let's delete. The idea is doing what I feel is an improvement in regards to layout and referencing on wikipedia. The infoboxes I added a much cleaner looking and I really do not have time to waste being reverted like some vandal. That is bad faith. All you had to do was leave a comment saying I have been working on them. In some cases individula templates may have some validity particularly if they have 5 + paramters not used in the standard template. But I've worked hard to improve these articles regardless, see my recent work on Algerian commune navigation templates,. I do this work regardless of TFDs but I just hate where these conversations are going out of spite with people voting for instance to keep German language templates when it is not they who edit them. It makes life very hard for me who actually edits and improves these articles. As for the disagreement, notice I have not recently nominated any templates myself and niether did I comment on the Australian or US province templates. I believe some of them are much better than others. The Solomon Islands and Liberian templates are clearly redundant. Note it will be me adding templates to articles about Liberian districts and refencing them. There is no Infbox Liberian district. By keeping the county template you unnecessily disupt the continuity of the work. I will be the one adding infoboxes and making maps and refencing them. Himalayan 15:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

COmpare for instance these two templates (who can delete them once viewed. Now click on this page to view them. The Liberian County tmeplate is not only redudant but it looks ugly. It is fat and bloated takes up half the width of the page and has way too many unnecessary parameters which makes editing to regulars like myself much more difficult.The quality is much better in this case. Please note that I don't do things for the sake of it I do them because I believe they are an obvious improvement and I'm trying to build an encyclopedia of the highest quality and in doing so remove redundancies and simplifying things to make them easier to edit and view. There is absolutely no reason to justify the continued existence of the liberian template. I'm not saying that some existing different infoboxes might have a lot of value being seperate but in most places with countries like Liberia and Solomons it really is unnecessary. I just think a lot of people have a misconception over what it is I actually do and how existing templates are actually converted.

For instance see Forchach, Austria which I converted to add a much needed municipality map. Now say I wanted to add municipality map to another in that district, let's say, Elmen. Now look at that template, what the heck does it mean and how do you know which is which without spending time to work out what the German is and the possibility of how you actually include the map. Now say a newbie wanted to help add maps, they would take one look at the box and think , urgh how the heck am I supposed to add a map? There is absolutely no reason why any settlement in Austria shouldn't have a template and municipal map like Forchach. The ones at present to not even have locators for municipalities which is a basic essential! Yet those of you who voted to keep it failed to see how much tougher you are making it for the people working on them.

I see the work I do as a big clean up task and to improve upon what we have already.For instance nobody would give two hoots if I added a standardised template to Butaw District and referenced it with population data (which I'll do in a few days). Yet if I try to make existing articles consistent and remove redundancies it causes a storm. Most of the recent nominations have been over templates which were barely used anyway. Most of the Nigerian states use fixed syntax boxes which are far worse than either the standard template or the Nigerian state template so whatever the outcome somebody is going to have to be working hard to sort the problem out. I have proposed that we discuss it at an RFC away from TFD. The problem is that each tmeplate is different and differs in level of status. Unlike the Australian settlement template which is used in thousands of articles many of them are barely used and are designed 10 times worse while some which are widely used and seem OK may have better justification to exist. Himalayan 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems you want to have this discussion in two places. So be it. First, I have never questioned your good intentions. Indeed, I've acknowledged them at every point. So there's no need to worry on that score. :) Nor have I questioned that there is a case to be made for using Infobox settlement. My point is only about when to make the change - during the TfD, or after. After, if the decision is to delete it, seems to me the right time, as it respects the right of editors to discuss the change before it is made. Not during, as you have been doing. Next, I have never said, (especially given that I haven't expressed an opinion in the TfDs) that Infobox settlement might not be a better design. My concern is that, whether or not Infobox settlement is a better looking template, there are good reasons for having an specialised infobox rather than a generic, do-everything design. Very good reasons, in fact. That said, based on what you have provided here, the old infobox could be reduced in size in an instant, and in making the transition from one template to another you have:
  • Lost data (abbreviations are gone, as is ranking of both population and area),
  • Replaced it with a design that, due to its complexity, has a greater room for error and is much harder for less skilled editors to work with, and
  • Made it so that two fields are required to cover the data that used to be contained in one. For example, rather than "Capital=Cesstos City", a user has to enter the far less intuitive "subdivision_type1=Capital" and "subdivision_name1=Cesstos City" to achieve the same end.
The lost data bothers me a lot, but from a design perspective I'm concerned that you have surrendered ease of use for standardisation. - Bilby (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, unless "rankings" are actually referenced then it is best not to include them. I have found in many places the rankings to be obviously incorrect or misleading and are likely to confuse the reader. If you can find me a reliable source backing up ranking I'll happily add it. Abbreviations are not really important, they are unused in most African articles, that is a minor concern. And no you are wrong about them being much harder to understand. The people who are doing the bulk of the edits on these articles find them much easier to operate. African editors like Fsmatovu find it much easier to use standard infoboxes in articles. You may have a point about the ability to add straight paramters like Capital=. In fact if for instance the template required 5 + special paramteters which the standard template didn't have I'd support a seperate template. I support the Russian infoboxes for instance because of this. If the settlement template could be modified to allow you to directly add such parameters as Capital= etc then this would solve a big part of the problem. Himalayan 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You and Ezhiki have a valid point about some of the parameters, particularly the blank ones and the sub division parameters. I am willing to discuss ways in which infobox settlement could better cater to these requirements as it is certianly possible for them to directly include any information presented in such templates. Himalayan 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care about rankings as such, but about the loss of data. Any change in design that carries a loss of data raises alarm bells for any system designer, unless there can be provided solid reasons for the loss. But I'm not commenting specifically on this case, although I stand by my view that this is a much more complex template, and thus is much more open to error due to that complexity, than the one it replaces. While it is clear that you can work with it, another editor, six or twelve months down the track, may find things much worse. Nevertheless, I'm concerned, as per many others, with the principle. There remain very good reasons why specialised templates should not be replaced with one, big "catch all" design, just as in OO design we don't try and create one huge class to contain all the possible subclasses. The problem isn't solved by adding more parameters - constantly adding parameters is, in fact, part of the problem. - Bilby (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have provided solid reasons why I left out ranking and abbreviation. If the previous templates had listed the number of cows for instance in that county and I also thought that wasn't important you would argue the same thing. I think you are making the situation much more complicated than it really needs to be. You're argument assumes that every single place in the world needs a different infobox. If I want to add a template to Butaw District, because according to you the settlement template is such a dreaful complex template to use I should refrain from adding one, a map and basic data because there isn't an infobox Liberian District. Himalayan 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am. But you can never be sure. :) You left them out, as I understand it, because the new template didn't support them, and that's ok because they aren't referenced. I think that's right? My concern is a more basic one - if the new template forces data to be lost, because the generic design doesn't allow for it, then there's cause for alarm bells. The particular data may not matter, but lost data is a genuine and serious concern in implementing a new system, and you need to justify its loss. Nevertheless, I think we're wandering off topic - I was just comparing the two templates you provided to show that they weren't equivalent, and one is not clearly better than the other.
With no other infoboxes available, then yes, using infobox settlement makes perfect sense, unless you would like to design infobox Liberian District. But in the ideal world, there might, (and this depends on a proper analysis of the data), be a subclass of infobox population center for district, and, if needed, you could create a subclass of that to cover unique requirements of Liberian districts. As it is, if Liberian districts has a unique requirement, you either need to give up on it, or add it to infobox settlement, thus effectively passing this unique requirement out to all instances were it will simply get in the way and provide no needed functionality.
Whatever happens, hopefully this whole matter will be addressed somewhere better than a TfD, but the attempts to do so in the past seem to have gone stagnant. - Bilby (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Look at the Liberian example again. The county template I used does have the capacity to include the information that the Liberian template does but I can see that whatever I do you are going to say it is grossly wrong. Besides users like Plastikfork who convert templates do it much more effciently and always ensure every little scrap of info is transferred with minimum fuss. Himalayan 17:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. But if you provide me with two examples, one of which contains less information that the other, and say "See? Mine is better!" then, with respect, I'm going to point out that it lost data. :) That said, while it has population density rank, it doesn't seem to have population rank per se, and instead my guess is that you would use population_blank1_title and population_blank1. Either way, if I have to work to figure out how to use it, and if you don't know how to add it, then complexity is looking bad.
As an aside, let's not call it county - it's settlement via a redirect. For good or ill. - Bilby (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to address multiple concerns. It would be simple to add a Capital= and Population_rank to appear under population not density and things like this. I think a discussion to work out how we create the best possible result is much better than the continued points being made currently. I have suggested that the TFDs hold off at the moment so we can discuss why exactly people are opposing. Himalayan 18:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's cool. Just keep in mind that adding more fields is exactly the wrong thing to do. The problem is trying to make a single template be everything to all people - that, in an of itself, is an error. Having wrapper templates helps to reduce the damage, but personally I think this is the wrong direction. - Bilby (talk)

I did propose it here but Rich isn't happy with the result... Himalayan 08:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. However, the solution won't be to make Infobox Settlement even bigger, as a big chunk of the problem is that it is too complex already. - Bilby (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kacey Jones

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kacey Jones has been moved to mainspace. Well done! --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

 This user played a significant role in helping Kacey Jones graduate from incubation.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Frédéric Mitterrand

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hey, well done for removing that, if it gets put back in again, ask to have it protected as BLP protection to the non contentious version. Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool, what I have found on wiki is that if an article is written in a mature way and balanced then it almost protects the article from poor edits, it is a bit like dropping in a black penny into a white pond, it is easily visible and so tends to put off the poor edits. If the article is poor and immature then it seems to attract more poor edits. Lets see how it goes. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Also thanks to you for tweaking up the content, it needed that, and also for joining in the discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair Editor Quote

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Its really too bad, because it really is a better written quote. In terms of cadence that is, not controversy. WookMuff (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

True. If only he had said it. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I find it incredibly annoying when reality gets in the way of a good article. We should move to the Hitchikers guide's "truth is beauty, therefore beauty is truth" standard. If people get eaten by bugblatter beasts, well so be it WookMuff (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Source of quote

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Appears to be the articles old friend, the Honolulu Star Bulletin again [6] WookMuff (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. I've found potential problem with the wording, though, so I'll take care of that shortly. - Bilby (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"According to Geimer's testimony, Polanski had asked Geimer's mother if he could photograph" Is the source of this the article or the testimony? WookMuff (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article states that it comes from the testimony. Personally, I'd be happy to reference the testimony directly, but WP:BLP generally prefers secondary to primary sources, and makes specific reference to court documents. So, all else being equal, it is probably safer to use an RS's paraphrasing of the testimony than source it directly. - Bilby (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
cool cool, just checkin' :) WookMuff (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No hassles. :) And I like having people check - I think we need to be very careful with each change. Double checking helps a great deal. - Bilby (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Never hurts to be crystal clear, I say... otherwise people could get the wrong idea. For some reason I mostly feel like keeping everything above board today, can't imagine why :) WookMuff (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a very wise move. Personally, I'm sticking to 1RR on this, in the hope that things can stay settled. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

remark

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My sincere apologies for my tone, I've just noticed your user page and have taken note of your claim as a competent professional. The shortness of my response was strictly due to a narrow reading of that specific edit, it's curtness ephemeral.99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies as well. I understand and that we all have strong opinions on this, but what I like is that we all have the same goals, just different ideas as to how they should be achieved. The strength of Wikipedia is that we can have these discussions, in my view, as that means that, whether or not I always agree with where consensus takes us, I can always regard the result as a well-considered decision. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

my comment on User talk:PennySeven

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why was my comment on User talk:PennySeven rollbacked --NotedGrant Talk 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I saw your edit :) no prob--NotedGrant Talk 11:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm really sorry - I noticed that I had clicked something by mistake just before getting your message, and self-reverted. It seems I accidentally clicked on revert in my watchlist when trying to change windows. - Bilby (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Are you actually interested in whether inflation erodes or destroys real value?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Are you actually interested in whether inflation erodes or destroy real value as an economic reality or are you just treating this technically as an editor?

If you are interested in the economic concepts, then we can carry on with the discussion here, because the discussion has been prematurely stopped on the inflation page.

It seems to me that you are only interested on a technical user level - not actually in the economic concepts.

Can you confirm and then we can just leave it there and not discuss it.

I just do not want to leave you hanging in the middle of nowhere - if you are really interested in the economic concepts.

I will not take this discussion to the inflation page. PennySeven (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for putting this question here.

PennySeven (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got nothing against discussing it, but the problem seems to be that we simply view the terminology differently. As I understand it, neither of us disagrees that inflation erodes the real value of a unit of currency. Or, as was originally in the article, that it"reduces" the value. This is a given. You simply seem to view erodes as being synonymous with destroys, so you wish to replace one with the other, based on your sources. Similarly, you previously argued that reduces had to be replaced with erodes, using a different set of sources. I, on the other hand, see destruction as a total act, and if inflation destroyed the value of a unit of currency then it would not be possible for that currency to recover - yet deflation allows it to do so. Personally, I'd probably even prefer using reduces, as it seems to me that erodes suggests a process which can't be turned back, even though it doesn't deny it the way destroys does, while reduces allows for the possibility. - Bilby (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilby/Archive_4&oldid=1166515587"