User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2013/January

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Billinghurst. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

WikiProject report: New Year, New York

Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

long time no speak

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

looks like a serial blanker amongst my edits (since blocked anyways) - you might want to watch or whatever

have a good new year btw - seems like an eternity since that canberra meetup the other year

cheers Satu Suro 13:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

News and notes: 2012—the big year

Featured content: Featured content in review

Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

Electrical muscle stimulation deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I agree with you about the deletion in the Electrical muscle stimulation article of the spam link to the Russian company. However, I think the other link to the EMS Digest is not spam. I'm not sure if you went through the document, but it is a useful and complete guide for those who want to learn more about the use of that technique in sport training.--Gciriani (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how a Google Docs document can be considered an authoritative document that meets Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:External links. We are an encyclopaedia, not a linking service, we should be applying rigorous tests, I was tempted to rip out more. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to the Wikipedia rules. I went through them and it seems to me the document fits the bill for inclusion. (1) The link is not in the body of the article and is not a citation. (2) The document contains a relevant bibliography section on which it is based. (3) The document is informative and factual; it reflects in abbreviated form this book: Gianpaolo Boschetti. CHE COS`E` L`ELETTROSTIMOLAZIONE. Libreria dello Sport; 2000. Available at: http://www.libreriadellosport.it/libri/che-cos-e-l-elettrostimolazione.php. This book is not available in English unfortunately. (4) WP:ELMAYBE The material contains information about the subject from knowledgeable sources: it is integrated with information taught by the author during a workshop; it is augmented with appendices written by world caliber specialists; if you go through the material you will see the name of a contributor who is triathlon world record champion in his age group, and who uses electrical muscle stimulation while teaching its use professionally. (4) The material is neutral accurate and relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter. The same document is hosted by other companies that have no financial link with the writer: EMS Digest hosted by Hammer Nutrition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Google docs falls under ...

“

Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)

”

... so if you think that it should be be included, then look to put it into a "Further reading" section, utilise {{cite book}} template but NOT inside <ref> tag, and put it into a proper context. As it is, it is nude and not sufficiently contextulised to demonstrates that the author it is authoritative. Also clearly stating that it is a Google Doc, and if possible, the size. (no surprises) — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Cakka Kawekas Nuraga

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw you deleted this page once before and thought I should let you know it's been recreated. I'm not sure what if any action needs to be taken right now, though, because while Cakka Nuraga has now been deleted as copyvio, there isn't any verbatim copyvio that jumps out at me on the new page (I haven't reviewed it in detail). Just thought you might like to know. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes one should check the talk page content before the Watchlist. I had found and deleted it from the watchlist, however, have resurrected it and moved it to a subpage of articles for creation after seeing your comments here. Left the contributor a note. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

Why remove reference to interview with Ian Clark?

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please join the discussion about this in Talk:IntelCenter --221.239.225.113 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Get a credible source. That is not. Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia:Citing sources — billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For all your hard work, contributions and administration of the Wikipedia project. Cheers.--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh! Welcome. Late at night and I couldn't tell whether it was a mistake or not, whether there was something in regex of which I didn't know, then I erred on the side of caution. :-)

IP block exemption

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. Last year, you gave me the IP-block-exempt flag [1]. The need for it was soon gone after. I didn't contact you about it since then, in fact I completely forgot about it. Today while reading an RFA one question was about when to give this flag and this reminded me about it. So here I come to tell you that it's been 1 year, 2 months and 14 days since I had no use for this hat. Regards, Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the contact. I have removed the flagged right. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Cockburn Campbell listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Thomas Cockburn Campbell. Since you had some involvement with the Thomas Cockburn Campbell redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --Griot-de (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)