User talk:TheBilly/July 2007 - December 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.


Contents

AIV

Hello, I've semi-protected your user page as requested. In future please use WP:RFP to request page protection, not WP:AIV. Thanks. Waggers 11:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've sprotected this talk page due to the ongoing trolling. Please, DNFT. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. I've actually been ignoring them algother, not even reverting their edits, because that would give them self-importance and 'feed' them. Luckily you and Bencherlite dealt with their efforts persistently. I appreciate it alot. Thanks, both of you! - TheBilly 12:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Bencherlite 12:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kimya Dawson

While you are correct in pointing out the Kimya Dawson article is poor quality and in need of refs, the idea that she, and the Moldy Peaches, are not notable is risable. The band spearheaded the anti-folk movement of the early 2000's rising to international fame. She alone gets almost a quarter of a million google results. Both Kimya and the band's profile are due to rise a fair bit in the near future with the release of the Juno movie which features their music on the soundtrack. Wwwhatsup 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable means that they have had professional, respected sources make mention of them. If they're notable, it should be easy to prove TheBilly 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added the Juno info to the article. Wwwhatsup 23:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Dated maintenance tags

I've modified your "trivia" tag in SQL injection to read as follows:

{{trivia|date=November 2007}}

You had used "Nov 2007". Please note that dated maintenance tags use the full month name and year to automatically add the article to a dated maintenance category (Category:Articles with trivia sections from November 2007 in this case) to make it easier for cleanup editors to work the backlog of articles that need such attention. If one doesn't follow the specific date format, the article won't be properly categorized. Please consider this for your future edits. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hertzfeldt

Billy, this entry was not my original content. But I do not see how that bit of info falls under what you call speculative or "original research". Nobody knows the intention of the Kellogg's company, so it is important to state that. Please explain your point of view here. The point of discussing these things first avoids edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepyjuly (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Following the rules avoids edit wars. Original research has to prove itself, people who remove it don't TheBilly (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a topic heading

Perhaps that's just my interpretation of the policy then, oh well. Although I don't see that it should warrant being labelled as vandilism... Gran2 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Trivia Cleanup edits

My apologies for the misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. It was not my assumption that your edit was in bad faith. The statement you corrected in its original form could be interpreted two different ways. Knowing a little bit about the history of the project, I strongly suspects that "then" was the original intent. Sorry also for the rather aggressive edit summary. There has been some heated debate about trivia recently and I suppose my reflex is to be a bit defensive about the project. Again, I apologize. Lastly, thank you for your grammatical corrections to the page; your corrections were much appreciated. Sbacle (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand it was just a big misunderstanding. I was just initially bothered to see a harmless but helpful edit snubbed, and that I had to defend such a small edit. I'm glad it's all worked out now, though. No hard feelings :) TheBilly (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Warnings for Vandalism

Thank you for telling me about this, I'll make sure to do so in the future. Honestly, this will make my life easier in the future, for Twinkle does not work on my computer. Thanks again.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, I just saw the edits I made to the IP linkspammer...how oafish of me!-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Haha, it's no big deal. I just thought you seemed like a conscientious editor who would like to be informed of how to better handle these types of people in the future :) TheBilly (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's me! :)-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

American IronHorse

Hello. I made some edits to American_IronHorse after you recently tagged it as an advertisement. I removed the tag after deleting the two sentences at the end of the first paragraph that read like ad copy. I added the article's first solid reference since the official site is flash and can't really be cited. Corey Salzano (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What template doc?

Sorry Billy, but I want to see this "template doc" you are talking about.

If it is part of the Wikiproject, it doesn't bind. It needs to be in a manual of style in order for it to bind. I HATE this "Bulapedia" template, and so I will struggle against it. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I found that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokémon/Style is no longer active. And either way it doesn't specify the format. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to Template:nihongo. You put the English versions of these words outside the code when it was already properly formatted inside the brackets, using the template, as it was done in a few hundred other instances in these pokemon list articles already. My comment was referring to the proper use of Japanese; Within one of instance of that template, you put English, then kana/kanji, then romaji, then up to two "extra" bits of information. You can refer to the nihongo template doc to see how to use it, and there is a manual of style at MOS:JP - TheBilly (talk) 05:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, when you do articles on subjects where the subject has completely different names in English and Japanese, that does not do. There is nothing in policy that says this, but I feel disappointment in being challenged over this.

How it should be done: English, known as Japanese name as stated in Roman characters (Japanese, Raw romanization of Japanese) in Japan. The usage of the template... works. But names ought to be completely separated if they are different between the English and Japanese.

I often work on Japan-related articles and I am very much aware on how the template works. I insist that my version is better and cleaner on the eyes. The current organization is messy and not properly organized. I use the separated organization with OTHER subjects (anything from Case Closed, to Digimon, etc.) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Now on the talk page! WhisperToMe (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"First of all, don't act condescending towards me ("whether you like it or not")."

Uhm, I think you read too much into what I said. I think the phrase "whether you like it or not" is perfectly acceptable in that context - You may not like the fact that the katakana does not reflect the spelling of the actual name, but that is the truth. The truth has to be accepted. It would be a bit different if I said "whether you like it or not" as in if I was trying to force you into making a certain decision for Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You introduced it out of nowhere. I didn't make any statements to the effect of "I know this is wrong, but that's how I like it". I was arguging that "this is correct", and you threw in the "like it or not" on your own. It was a cheap shot at belittling my argument, framing it as my own ignorant personal opinion TheBilly (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)