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.

Hi, thanks for the feedback about the article I'm trying to edit on anti-environmentalism. I didn't however find I was writing from a certain point of view. Anti-environmentalism is basically an opinion on it's own so it's going to be a challenge to write about neutrally. I'm trying to describe the opinion of anti-environmentalists, not my own opinion. I'm now adding my ideas to the talk page instead of the main article. Sarmariemack (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I just created an account and started an article on a non profit organization. Still interested in 'adopting'? I could use all the help I can get.

--Artemislon (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby. I created a draft article in my user page. Once I'm ready, is there a way for me to send it to you for review before submission? I'm still a bit confused about how the whole process works. --Artemislon (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

came over here to say I answered you, in case you didn't watch list the page. Not sure if that is automatic. But given what you do perhaps you could cast an eye over:

Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Bill_mandates_at_odds_with_internet_structure

which tries to explain why mandating a national access control list will not allow federal agents to "just remove the offending page of a website." Since that's a mindbogglingly ridiculous idea, no RS has refuted it yet, but there seem to be lots of wikipedia articles to link to. That section is done (I think). I could also really use help with some other sections, if you have the time or expertise or know someone who does.

• DNSSEC
• an explanation of why it is bad to have conflicting entries in recursive servers

I know propagation happens but don't know the specifics of how this gets resolved. I guess I'll go look at the Crocker-Vixie paper again.

• need RS for 4chan and Anonymous opposition
• international community on US control of internet. I wrote something up about ICANN,IANA, Verisign and the US Dept of Commerce, which apparently did not explain the issue very well, since it got deleted. But if it's already a problem that the United States controls the root server and .com etc, surely using that control to enforce US cpyright is not going to make US control seem like a better idea to the likes of India.

all these need to be really brief tho, which is hard, because the are complicated. But a review of the "at odds with structure of the internet" section would be a great start.

And now you know what bit of silliness *I* am fighting. 75.149.44.10 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

the above post by me, sorry Elinruby (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a really interesting problem. And a difficult one. I've watchlisted the page, and I'll do some reading to catch up on the issues - I was aware of the Act, but need to look into it some more to get a better picture of the issues. - Bilby (talk) 03:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Soccer in Australia". Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Soccer in Australia". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ck786 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you are having the same conversation with User:WLRoss about the "inappropriate" tagging of other editors' comments? Are you having that discussion, and reverting his edit as well? Liangshan Yi (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never liked the SPA tags, and typically only see value in them during AfDs. In an open discussion they don't work for me. That said, they are established as a means of identifying people, and seem to be accepted practice. Thus there's nothing I can do there. I can only hope that other editors recognise that having a narrow focus isn't indicative of a problem. - Bilby (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is in regards to P&Ws ongoing personal attacks. Cheers. Wayne (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI I have just noticed that Phoenix and Winslow has accounts on the Spanish, German, Norwegian, Russian and Swedish Wikipedias that have made no edits outside of their respective Ugg Boot articles. I'm beginning to think there is some corporate connection. Wayne (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I had seen the German and Spanish versions - the latter of which makes me think that there is a real problem here. You may be right about a COI, but they're particularly hard to determine. - Bilby (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your checks in this CCI (like the others) so that others are able to see who is behind them. Thanks. MER-C 10:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I should have remembered that. Shall do. - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. MER-C 11:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm a little distressed over the lack of civility and productivity going on with NPOV page. I thought Ugg boots looked pretty cleaned up a few months ago with two equally valuable perspectives given their fair share. I'm asking you to consider each one on their own individual merit. I think there's been too much emotion and shouting going on recently and I'd like to steer this in a more productive direction.--Factchk (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly won't object to being civil or considering both sides - I've been doing so, but this has always been a heated debate. Given that, I'm not sure why you raise this point here, but I guess that's your prerogative. - Bilby (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I raised it there because it seemed like a good place to try and promote a compromise as things seemed to be more heated than usual. Thanks for the input. It was helpful. I hadn't noticed that the page already recognized the non-use which is good. Perhaps I'll re-post on the Talk page so others can see. I would be willing to support a disambiguation page or splitting off the trademark dispute. Its fair to question whether the number of issues clogs up the entry.--Factchk (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bilby: As you can see, I was trying to straighten out the odd categorization that the anonymous 67.126.141.125 had been placing on all these sailors -- Robin Lee Graham;Tania Aebi; Jessica Watson; Jesse Martin; David Dicks; Michael Perham; Laura Dekker...It was late and I did not have the time to see it through. In particular, I forgot to change Jessica back to the youngest, after correctly pointing out that Laura Dekker had not yet finished her attempt. I agree 100% with your more accurate descriptions. Let's hope that the above user does not start another round of "silly walks"! --Skol fir (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I found out that the anonymous user above is from the Los Angeles area. I wonder what his motives were to rank all these young sailors in order of when they became the youngest sailor. It seems kind of pointless to me, since only one of them currently is the youngest, and the order in which the others joined that rank seems irrelevant. It almost looks like some kind of test edit to me - pointless and clueless. Also, there were only two Americans on the list. He might have been trying to enhance their status because they were # 1 (1970) and # 2 (1987) in order of achieving that distinction! A bit of a selfish purpose for editing them all (and who knows, maybe a dislike for Jessica Watson who outwitted, outsmarted and outsailed poor Abby!) Who knows "what evil lurks in the minds of men!" lol --Skol fir (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! You could be right about the reasons - the user has a very narrow set of interests, and seems to have a focus on US circumnavigators of various types. :) In regard to the descriptions, the IP's additions were a bit ambiguous - and it occured to me that, technically speaking, Joshua Slockum held the "youngest circumnavigator" record at 54. :) Thus "fifth youngest" seems a bit odd in the way the IP meant. - Bilby (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, thanks for cleaning up after me in the Plimer article. I am a new user so figuring everything out will take some time. I understand my error with the australian scientists stub, but if there are any other mistakes I make please drop me a line so that I learn from them! I appreciate your patience --Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For Cleaning up after the Newbies! Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, thanks for setting me straight on Edward Morgan (choreographer). The old copyvio page has now been deleted. Should I at once put up my new version, or should we wait until the AfD is closed? I've never seen an AfD on an already-deleted page before... and don't see any particular reason why what I'm about to create should go straight to AfD, for that matter! So maybe less confusing to wait, I guess? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Bilby,

You are a hero. Yust as I thought their was no one on wikipedia wanting to help you come along and save the day. I would love it if you could start the new article about the International Cadet Austrlain Championship. It would be realy great to have any sought of article and It would be great to keep as much of the infomation from my orignal article as possible. I would of course provide you with as many sourses as I could find (but not right now as I am going to bed). Yust a couple of things. I made it so many generic terms for these championsips find the article I created when searched for so these might have to go. Also I was wondering if it was possible, after the event gets started, to add results tables which were on my article but have been taken off.

I would love it if you could make this change (as I am new I don't know how to do it) then I would love to help edit.

Thank you so much, Tris.obrien (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you so much for writing the article and saving all my hard work Tris.obrien (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

please undelete my article,i produced valid authenticated links,wikipedia is a pool of knowledge and it should not be made so complicated.BUT IF U COULD WRITE AN ARTICLE ABOUT AMITA BAJPAI I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY,AS U ARE MUCH MORE EXPERIENCED.(Cheekubaaj (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Just in case you didn't see it on WP:AN. theres a standing request for someone to close the discussion. My experience is that this can take a while, but I presume it will be handled some day. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I was well aware. I just don't think the close would happen while discussion continues there. Donama (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello there! I've been doing some Gnome work around, generally maintenance of the New Pages and Recent Changes, but I'm looking for a more experienced user who'd be willing to "Adopt me" and help me work on researching topics and adding real content to pages. I'm wondering if you'd have the time to help me become a more productive member of the community, at least in regards to content?

It seems that you're doing pretty well as things stand. :) But I'm happy to help if wherever I can. - Bilby (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Catriona1029 Need Help 2 edits, both removed please help me

Hi, I'm a concordia student from montreal who needs help editing a Wikipedia page, it's my first time and I'm sure i'll need the help if you have the time! Thanks, (Steph kobe (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC))Steph Kobe

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your work in helping unbite a user who had concerns about his biography at Wikipedia, Thomas Edsall, you definately went above and beyond what most users do. I noticed your work on the help desk, and you definitely deserve this barnstar. Jayron32 15:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it appears Jayron got here first, but I wanted to say much the same thing. Bravo. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) But given the work both of you do to help users, I feel I've done very little in comparison - although I appreciate it a great deal. - Bilby (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Found this interesting company history showing sales of Ugg boots under that name prior to Steadman and Smith.[1] May be relevant to the article?
What is an Ugg Boot?
It's not absolutely clear where the term Ugg originated, however, we believe “Ugg Boot” is a generic term that first originated in Australia and was used to describe the style of Sheepskin Boots worn by surfers to keep their feet warm after spending hours in the sea. These surfers, travelling the world in search of the perfect wave, brought the Ugg boot to Newquay in Cornwall in about 1973. Ever since then, Ugg boots have been made in Newquay.
The Celtic Sheepskin Co. originated in Newquay in 1973 as ‘Hide & Feet’ - making Ugg Boots and assorted leather goods. Nick Whitworth and his wife Kath – who had worn Ugg boots for years - bought the business in August 1990 from a local builder. In 1991 Nick registered the term UGG as a UK trademark and for the next 6 years trading continued under the new name of ‘The Original Ugg Co.’ With ever increasing sales, the popularity of Ugg spread around the UK, so a decision was made to concentrate on selling via mail order catalogue and of course via the web.
In 1994 Brian Smith from the USA Company of Ugg Holdings contacted Nick and came over to Newquay to discuss the purchase of the rights to use the term UGG. Negotiations slowed whilst Ugg Holdings were taken over by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, but finally in 1996 an agreement was reached whereby Deckers Outdoor Corporation licensed the use of the UGG trademark, with an option to purchase at a later date.
In the meantime Nick in Newquay changed the company name from The Original Ugg Co. to The Celtic Sheepskin Co. and re-christened the distinctive range of boots from Ugg boots to ‘Celt boots’. Wayne (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have stumbled across that as well, and didn't know what to do with it. :) It is an interesting account. I've got another account that puts ugg boots as being invented in Adelaide. I guess when the article is opened up, we may need to spend time trying to cover the different accounts in some way. - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it significant that despite the Whitworth's registering the term UGG as a UK trademark they still considered the name "Ugg boots" generic when refering to the style. The account also demolishes the claim that the name was only generic in Australia and New Zealand. Wayne (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I’m still somewhat confused about what goes where, so please excuse me if I don’t initially follow the right protocol. I’m writing to ask if you’d be a mentor for my course (the first in Arizona according to Tom Cloyd). I liked Reality Check’s page and hope that you can help me put together something similar. My course concerns children’s language development; it has 110 students and a teaching team of 11 (I’m the professor). If you agree to help me out, it’s important for you to know that from my perspective Wikipedia’s education arm has gone silent, so I have no CAs. Classes start next week, so I’m reducing this to a pilot (probably wise for other reasons too). I’ll use online materials to get a couple of my undergraduate preceptors into roughly CA-shape; one graduate student is interested in helping; and I myself am working to become more knowledgeable. But I’m impressively ignorant at this stage. I don’t even know how I’ll learn the answer to my question to you. – Cecile McKee or Cecilemckee (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what I'm doing wrong. But my message appears when saved with false false false and not much else. Cecilemckee (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby. I'll add you to my course page (although I haven't yet figured out many many aspects of editing that). Also, I don't think the false false business is my browser because it only happened to me on your Talk page. I used the same browser to contact two other potential online ambassadors and got a better result. Again, many thanks -- Cecilemckee (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silverseren^C 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby! Just FYI, I undid this edit, where you reverted User:Makeemlighter, who was closing a featured picture candidate as is appropriate. I assume this was a mistake? Jujutacular ^talk 22:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou! Sorry - I never even saw a page saying that I made a revert. I must have accidentally clicked on something and then move on to the correct page without noticing. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

For helping to improve articles about Canberra Capitals players. :D

LauraHale (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think any of the Capitals players would be worth taking to Good Article with out huge amounts of work, let me know. :) --LauraHale (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Shall do. Some look like they are certainly heading in the right direction, but I'm not sure if the sources are out there to get the overall coverage needed. One or two good, long interviews may be enough for that, though. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of them just do not have the sources. : / Michaela Dalgleish seems like one of the potentially easier ones as she retired from basketball, but not my first choice of who I would like :) Marianna Tolo is probably one of the easier ones as I haven't really looked for sources for her. The article was mostly built as I found information about her looking for others. (The Xena thing? She appeared either on the front or back page of the Canberra Times with that image. I distinctly remember it, and it is why she is one of my favourite players.) If you want help creating articles about the Lightning, let me know. :) The Adelaide team is quite good. :)

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.

SarahStierch (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I should not have to come and tell you about bite and expert retention. Have some respect for FlashingYoshi's intricate work. Wikipedia needs programmers, whilst I can see the future perfectly well, and know his work will be removed, I will not put up with him being shown such disrespect. Use the talkpage section that has already been written for this very purpose. Penyulap _talk 19:56, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am afraid that I have no idea what you're talking about. Who is FlashingYoshi? - Bilby (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't remove my comments from the talkpage without my permission. Penyulap _talk 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That comment is extremely inappropriate and a potential BLP violation. Removing it quietly is the best way forward. - Bilby (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Hello!

I wanted to introduce myself. I'm the CA for the Language Development course that you're working on as Online Ambassador. I just got back from training at the Wikimedia Foundation but because of communication issues was added on a little late. Anyways, I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and am grateful to have you and User:Cullen328 working on this too. I just met with User:cecilemckee and she wanted to make sure that the three of us stay away from content but focus on copyright issues, citations, formatting and other Wikipedia values. Luckily, the other CA's have taken the course before and will be working on content and course requirements. Thanks! Semccraw (talk)Semccraw —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

• Thanks, Bilby. My concern is that students may interpret your suggestions for more reading as assignments. I've already given them assignments, and I don't want anyone confused about what my course requires. Best, Cecilemckee (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah i didn't know how, and there is unlikely to be a 2010 or 2013 gang rape of this magnitude IMO not that richmond has any lack of rapes. do i need to take an action or have you made the change?LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

As the page is locked I have set it up in my sandbox and made test changes per talk to see how it looks. I have also rewritten the history a bit. The page should not be seen as a replacement but one we can do test edits on. Feel free to have a look, make changes if you like and/or comment on the sandbox talk page. I have posted this message on several editors talk pages. Despite P&W's usual claims in this regard, we have a consensus for the edits per talk page so if we (editors who have shown they can work together and compromise if needed) can agree on how the article page reads it may avoid the inevitable long winded discussions in Talk once the page is unlocked. Wayne (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. If I get the chance I'll have a look. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

Hi Bilby, may I inquire as to why you reverted this edit using rollback? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for letting me know - it seems I hit revert while closing the window on the iPad. I've fixed it now, I think - a tad longer than I would have wished, due to intervening edits, but it should be back the way it was meant to be. (I also just noticed that I accidentally logged out as well. Oh well. So much for touch screens). - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm an expert when it comes to hitting rollback by mistake. Do you want me to revdel your IP? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No need for revdel - it changes every day, and I don't hide who I am. :) Thanks again for letting me know about my stuff up, though. - Bilby (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we were reviewing Bruneau – Jarbidge Rivers Wilderness at the same time. I'm not absolutely sure that removal is necessary. The source was a page associated with Public Lands, which is associated with the Department of the Interior, which is the Federal government. If it is a Fed work product, then we need a pd template. However, as it is the work product of Public Lands Interpretive Association, I'm not sure of the status. If you are, please fill me in, if not, I'll check further.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the conflict, then. :) In this case, I went for removal because the page had a copyright tag for PLIA at http://www.publiclands.org/explore/site.php?id=7948, so I figured to err on the side of assuming that the content from that page fell under the copyright claim. If they've taken it from Public Lands, then they're not the original source, and I agree with you that it would not be copyrighted. I'm happy to defer to your judgement as to which way to go. :) On the plus side, only two sections to complete now, albeit big ones. I'll probably sleep and try to help out in the morning. - Bilby (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I have that page marked for me to rewrite the section - where I'm not sure about the copyright of possibly public domain text, I tend to try and rewrite to sidestep the problem. If it wasn't 3am I'd be giving that a shot now. :) - Bilby (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No need to be sorry; the CCI area is so underpopulated, that bumping into someone is a pleasure. Nice work.

To be honest, I missed the copyright notice. It is in light gray under the disclaimer and privacy notice links, which I checked to see if there was a copyright. In facty, when I went to the page you linked, my first reaction was, "I've checked this page!" But there it is. I think the original editor should be gently informed (Blue Canoe). Do you want to do it?

Given the copyright notice, your deletion was quite correct. Plus, I think it makes sense to err on the safe side, but I thought there was some chance the material was pd, so I wanted to see if you had looked into it. You had, so we are fine, except for reminding Blue Canoe not to copy paste. If it is 3am there, you may not even see this for some time, but let's agree on who should inform Blue Canoe at some time. I'll move on to a different CCI, there are plenty to choose from.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to chat with him. I'll leave a message today. The notice was almost impossible to see - I've been doing some work on dust removal in photos, so my screen is set on high contrast, so I guess that made it stand out more here. :) - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed this item because I have been looking at copying among the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness Areas articles. Have you been able to find an archived copy to rule out reverse copying? I tried to use the Internet Archive, but I didn't see any results for that page. The relevant window is less than a year from the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009's original proposal in June 2008 and BlueCanoe's insertion in May 2009. Are these PumpkinSky edits (closing paraphrasing without noticing the duplication; removing the redundant paraphrased text, but leaving the exact copy) worth noting on the CCI? Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The problem with the Wayback Machine is a cool one - I discovered yesterday that I have to give a lecture this semester on the problems of archiving dynamic sites, and this is perfect example. :) Anyway, I guess the main issue is that Blue Canoe added a reference to the material at the same time as it was added to the article, so there's good reason to believe that it was accidentally copied on the assumption that it would come under PD as a US Government work. Anyway, I've put that down as minor copyvio in CCI, because, I guess, technically the sentence added was copyvio, but at the same time it looks like an inadvertent mistake to me. I've always assumed that the CCI's are primarily about cleanup, rather than recording problems, though, so I'm very happy to defer to other opinions. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bureau of Land Management .pdf that BlueCanoe cited is a simple map without background text, so I doubt that it was the source. Your approach is good – there's no point in being accusatory. You're also right on the last point, but the absence of recorded problems on this CCI is being used to argue that the user has zero outstanding issues. In any case, I should discuss my concerns with PumpkinSky directly. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You are very right about the map - that was foolish of me. So yes, reverse copyvio is possible. I'm still more comfortable with removing and rewriting, as there are good reasons why a dynamic page wouldn't show up in the wayback machine, but I'm also happy to assume good faith as much as I possibly can. :) I'll make a note along those lines for BlueCanoe.

In regard to PumpkinSky, I was aware of the wider issues, but haven't really been following them. I guess I admire Moonriddengirl's approach of working with editors to help them understand how to avoid problems in the future enough that I'm less concerned with creating a record than with fixing problems and confirming that they're not going to reoccur. But then perhaps to do that you do need an idea of the extent of the problem, good or bad. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

	reviewing eyes
	Thank you for reviewing in the Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky, you did a lot to clarify! Paraphrasing (I hope not too closely): If everybody who read this looked at one more article it could be over today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is over, thanks again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the help with the Colin Defries article. you know, sprucing up the language. Although the node module was a little bit of a surprise, thanks for catching it anyhow. Also, please do have a look and let me know if you see any problems with it, you seem to have an eye for these things. Or at least a very fast delete key, LOL. Penyulap _talk 07:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for not getting to this earlier. I'll have a look again today and get back to you. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought, I'm pretty sure I didn't break 3RR because the 1st one was reverting a sockpuppet which it says is allowed? I replied on my talk page there properly

(I'm still not sure if it's better to use talk bac or not, on the one hand people say it's better to have discussions in one place for long term keeping track of debates, but on the other hand there seems to be quite a lot of controversy/negative sentiment attached to ((talkback)) so I'm scared of using it lol)

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding ((subst:wikitea2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam! A few updates for you about Wikipedia:Teahouse, since you're one of our awesome Teahouse hosts!:

• The host lounge is open! Please take time to review the materials in the space and start contributing to the how-to pages. Your input is valuable. Not only is it great practice to get our minds thinking like hosts, but, you can also provide easy to understand instructions and sound bites for fellow hosts!
• Join the conversation by participating on the host lounge talk pages[2][3]. We also have an IRC channel now for hosts to get to know one another, develop your skills, and eventually the channel will serve as an additional help space for new editors!

• To visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-teahouse ^connect (Feel free to ask me for help if you're having trouble connecting!)

• Let new editors get to know you by creating your Teahouse profile. Contribute your profile on the host page at the Teahouse! This serves as a fun way for new editors to get to know the people behind the usernames. You can post a photograph of yourself or an avatar, add a quote about yourself or something you enjoy, and share projects and activities you participate on wiki (with wikilinks).

Very exciting things are taking place, and we'll be opening the Teahouse no later than Monday. Feel free to ping me on or off wiki, and I can't wait to work with you to welcome new editors with a warm cup of tea :) SarahStierch (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:TFD deletions by admin User:Fastily, which occured following the closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24#Template:New York cities and mayors of 100.2C000 population. Be advised that I have opened Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27#User:TonyTheTiger/New York cities and mayors of 100,000 population.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby! Great news: The Teahouse is open for business! We're ready to start inviting new users, answering questions and inspiring one another. If you haven't already taken a look at the links provided in the most recent Teahouse update, posted on your talk page, please do! Don't forget to add yourself to the Host page if you haven't already. What's next? Inviting hosts and reporting your invitation information.

• Please familiarize yourself with this brief rundown of your responsibilities as a Teahouse host.
• Use the invitation guide to invite new users and report your invites.
• Make sure you have the Q&A page on your watch page and dive in when answers get asked! Feel free to ask your own questions - either seeking help or inspiring others to share their projects, ideas and inspiration for editing.

See you at the Teahouse! SarahStierch (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

hi Bilby! Just dropping by to let the hosts know about some new suggestions I've made based on interactions at the Teahouse thus far. Please take a look when you can! Thanks and see you at the Teahouse :) New suggestions regarding Q&A participation for hosts. -- SarahStierch (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Currency House Incorporated, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind welcome to the world of Wikipedia. I look forward to exploring the place. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Dear Bilby Currency House would be grateful for your offer of help with the new page. I'm new to Wikipedia so I hope this is the right way to reply to you. Priscilla R Yates Priscilla R Yates (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the first edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Metrics are out from week one. Week one showed that the need for Teahouse hosts to invite new editors to the Teahouse is urgent for this pilot period. It also showed that emailing new users invitations is a powerful tool, with new editors responding more to emails than to talk page templates. We also learned that the customized database reports created for the Teahouse have the highest return rate of participation by invitees. Check out the metrics here and see how you can help with inviting in our Invitation Guide.
• A refreshed "Your hosts" page encourages experienced Wikipedians to learn about the Teahouse and participate. With community input, the Teahouse has updated the Your hosts page which details the host roles within the Teahouse pilot and the importance that hosts play in providing a friendly, special experience not always found on other welcome/help spaces on Wikipedia. It also explains how Teahouse hosts are important regarding metrics reporting during this pilot. Are you an experienced editor who wants to help out? Take a look at the new page today and start learning about the hosts tasks and how you can participate!
• Introduce yourself and meet new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. New & experienced editors to Wikipedia can add a brief infobox about themselves and get to know one another with direct links to userpages. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, they'll surely be happy to feel the wikilove!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone named Fasttimes68 keeps getting into editing wars, now it seems with this former model's page. Her husband only "claims" to be a billionaire, it was never reported by a third party source that is actually is. I suggest this matter with this editing person be stopped. He seems to like arguing with other editors regarding models quite often on here. JohnJaySee (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2012 (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.

-- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Bilby, I just asked a question at the Teahouse that you might have interest in! I hope you'll stop by and participate! Sarah (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bilby! Just a reminder - please don't forget to use the Teahouse Talkback for the editors you provide answers too. Most new editors don't know about the watchlist gadget or think about checking back, and it does show that leaving the template helps. It's mentioned Host tips page and also on a general template collection we have that features all of our templates, thus far! I hope you find value and use in these! Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm new here. UnderGODsHelp (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:CO-OP falls apart if the ones who are NOT honest are not policed, otherwise PR has no motivation to do so, think about it. It's actually helping those who remain honest, because otherwise what have they got to gain by putting themselves under scrutiny when others are getting away with it whilst hiding their activities? --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering the response you got, I would just say nominate it for AfD again. Let the community decide once and for all if using the page for that purpose is okay or not. Silverseren^C 16:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the community did decide at the last AfD - the page was fine so long as it only listed self-identified paid editors. The question now is whether or not the community has changed its mind, or whether or not the consensus at that AfD should be enforced. I'm inclined to give it some time for discussion to occur first, but listing User:LauraHale there seems to be a significant problem that may need to be addressed separately. - Bilby (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see my question or your reply! Was it removed? Thanks,Thepoodlechef (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please leave your availability for the April Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting on this Doodle so we can find the best time for all of us.

I also need a volunteer to lead the meeting! Will you help? Leave a message. It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk)

Hi! Welcome to the second edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse celebrates one month of being open! This first month has drawn a lot of community interest to the Teahouse. Hosts & community members have been working with the project team to improve the project in many ways including creating scripts to make inviting easier, exploring mediation processes for troubling guests, and best practices regarding mentoring for new editors who visit the Teahouse.

• First month metrics report an average of 30 new editors visiting the Teahouse each week. Approximately 30 new editors participate in the Teahouse each week, by way of asking questions and making guest profiles. An average of six new questions and four new profiles are made each day. We'd love to hear your ideas about how we can spread the word about the Teahouse to more new editors.
• Teahouse has many regulars. Like any great teahouse, our Teahouse has a 61% return rate of guests, who come back to ask additional questions and to also help answer others' questions. Return guests cite the speedy response rate of hosts and the friendly, easy to understand responses by the hosts and other participants as the main reasons for coming back for another cup o' tea!
• Early metrics on retention. It's still too early to draw conclusions about the Teahouse's impact on new editor retention, but, early data shows that 38% of new editors who participate at the Teahouse are still actively editing Wikipedia 2-4 weeks later, this is compared with 7% from a control group of uninvited new editors who showed similar first day editing activity. Additional metrics can be found on the Teahouse metrics page.
• Nine new hosts welcomed to the Teahouse. Nine new hosts have been welcomed to the Teahouse during month one: Chicocvenancio, Cullen328, Hallows AG, Jeffwang, Mono, Tony1, Worm That Turned, Writ Keeper, and Nathan2055. Welcome to the Teahouse gang, folks!
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bilby. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if you'd try and fix the problem, rather than slapping speedy deletion tags all over the place. See over here we try to produce things, not tear them down, so little more effort of your part would be fantastic. Thanks Jetijonez (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when you create an article using copyrighted material, editing that article doesn't remove the violation, but instead creates a derivitive work, which continues to represent a significant licensing problem. So simply rewording the article only hides the problem, rather than removing it. - Bilby (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I do see what you mean now and thank you for your assistance. I did not think that facts like birth dates and death dates were copyrightable but although I worked as a paralegal my work was certainly NOT in copyright law and I am retired now. I will attempt to educate myself, with your help on copyright guidelines here and copyright law in general.

I did do a lot of work on these articles and had some scholarly advice along the way as to content. I will be more vigilant in the art of re-phrasing and again I welcome you assistance in that regard.

I did have one question. If I removed Mayflower sources for certain facts which seemed to be copied from out of copyright sources, may I use keep the information without the Mayflower source, or should it still be also be rephrased? For instance, the "expeditions" are clearly described in the Myles Standish out of copyright source (1856) I believe, and also the Bradford diary source I have used is not in copyright source which is also verbatim in the Mayflower sources.

I hope I explained myself clearly. If not, I apologize but would like to know before I re-write some of this material, especially Philbrick and Mayflower sources.

I do however, wish to maintain my styling of referencing. Wikipedia allows it and it is used widespread over Wikipedia. I also think it looks neater if done correctly. Will strive to do that.

I will welcome the help you wish to give. Thankyou. Mugginsx (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Just wanted you to know that I am working as fast as I can to replace references with actual out of copyright journal of bradford, mentioned in almost every article for births and deaths.

Also am re-phrasing. Also I am watching how expertly you rephrase and trying to change some sentences. Must get the Philbrick book back from the library for some of the references. Will do that tomorrow morning.

I wanted to express my gratitude for all of the good advice and hard work you did to improve the article and to save it from copyright violations.

I will continue to work hard and please contact me if you find anything that needs immediate help and I will stop the work in random articles and go directly to the one that (needs) work.

Also left you a note on Talk:Edward Tilley page.

Thank you very, very much. Mugginsx (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

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

At the moment there are no Tonsley train services. The Reopening date as not been released. It has not been re-sleepered.

Greetings,

I need your help to lead the next Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting! Will you leave a message if you can help? It requires no advanced preparation, just the ability to welcome everyone and move us through the agenda.

The next meeting has been scheduled for Monday, April 23 at 20:00 UTC. See the meeting information page for joining instructions and a time converter. Hope to talk with you on Monday! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk)

Hi. When you recently edited Black Thunder (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Cavanaugh and Richard Norton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insightful and intelligent comments about the CREWE study. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, was your intention with this edit to indicate that you are not reviewing Emotional prosody. If so please can you place the ((db-g6|rationale=accidental start of review)) template on the page and blank the review. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. I have looked at the article which is nowhere near ready for GA so i will conclude the review and quickfail myself. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I had been reviewing the article, and was in the process of checking the sources. I'm disappointed that you took over in this manner. The revert was because it appeared than starting GAN reviews is now added by bot - I had planned to check that after the review was underway. I'm not sure of the best way forward at this point, but I feel that it is still necessary for me to continue going over the article. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, revert my review if you like but the article is nowhere near ready for GA status at present. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I had intended to fail the article, so I don't mind the review staying as it is. My concern was that there were very serious problems with the article, and a quick fail, while appropriate, would risk leaving them in place until a peer review (if one eventuates). Anyway, I'll finish going through the sources, as I need to check a couple more before I can work out the best way forward, one of which is unfortunately difficult to get access to. I'll take care of it. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the third edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse reaches two month mark. The Teahouse has been live on English Wikipedia for two months now and evidence of the project's impact is beginning to show. Thank you to the hosts and Wikipedians who have helped make the Teahouse the valuable place for new editor's to seek help and feel welcome.
• April metrics report has been posted on meta! Some relevant metrics from April’s report include:

• In April, Teahouse averaged 45 questions per week.
• An average of 20 new editors visiting for the first time were served at the Teahouse, in addition to repeat guests.

• Many guests are repeat visitors: the average guest asks 1.5 questions and 22% of guests ask more than one question.

• Reports show that the Teahouse is having a positive impact on editor engagement! Comparing a sample of 75 new editors who participate in the Teahouse with a control group (of equivalent size and similar first-day editing activity) shows:

• New editors who participate in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles than the uninvited control group.
• New editor participants also make an average six times more global edits.
• Average Teahouse participants add 26 times more bytes of content that survive on Wikipedia (meaning content that isn't reverted or deleted) than the uninvited control group.

• More Teahouse participants remain active on Wikipedia at least 10 days later. Among the 224 editors in our three experimental groups, 28 percent of new editors who participate in the Teahouse were still active on Wikipedia at least ten days later, compared with 12 percent who received an invitation but didn't actively participate in the Teahouse, and only 5 percent from a similar uninvited control group.
• Teahouse visibility is a challenge, as we try to make the Teahouse visible to new editors, invitation has been the the main way of informing new editors about the Teahouse, and while that is a powerful tool, many new editors go uninvited. Input on Teahouse link placement is welcome! (Join in on the conversation here.)
• Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is a really nice way to make new editors feel welcome.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed my A7 CSD tag from City Cross Arcade, just wanted to know the rationale behind your objection. Cheers, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 13:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC).

Now that it is at AfD, I think it should be given the seven days - there is no reason to asusme taht there aren't sources available to show notability, so we need to allow some time in case they can be found. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! We're seeking your feedback as a current or formal host at the Teahouse about the project. Please stop by and lend your voice at your convenience, here. Thanks :) Sarah (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I hope that this finds you well! Please, don't start an edit war re WebPurify and your edits to Mike Kelly (Australian politician). Your initial and repeated tagging of WebPurify seems to miss the sources, and seems hence in revenge for my tagging of your edits showing a potential POV conflict on Mike Kelly (Australian politician). Read the sources, and if you looked at this with a neutral view you'd see that it passes WP:NOTAB - I wouldn't have added it other wise. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no problem with your comments there - I have no particular POV in regard to Mike Kelly, but I also have no reason to be upset if someone raises a concern. In regard to WebPurity, though, I think there is an issue that needs to be worked through. It doesn't seem to meet the notability requirements, and I'm having trouble verifying the articles that would show that it does. Hopefully that will all be solved soon. I've asked for more information on the talk page, and I'm sure that will fix things. - Bilby (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing interest in the Wikipedia Education Program Metrics and Activities Meeting. I'm investigating ways to make the meeting more effective, and I'd love to get feedback from you as to what we could do to improve the meeting. Please weigh in on the discussion there! -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk)

Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Sarah (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been four weeks since you initiated this review, but there isn't any sign of activity on it at all, nor was there any initial commentary on the review itself. Are you planning to do this review soon? If not, I can put it back in the reviewing pool. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for the delay - after some copyvio problems recently, I wanted to check out all of the references, and a couple were hard to get. That's all done now, so I'll take care of it in the next day or so - I have some non-wiki marking to do, but this is more fun, so it will be a nice break. - Bilby (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

	Teahouse Barnstar
	I, Sarah, hereby award you, Adam, the Teahouse Barnstar for your valued participation in the Teahouse pilot. You are a great source of information for new and experienced editors alike. I look forward to your continued participation at the Teahouse and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia the invaluable resource it is! Sarah (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the fourth issue of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter for the Teahouse!

• Teahouse pilot wraps up after 13 weeks After being piloted on English Wikipedia starting in February, the Teahouse wrapped up its pilot period on May 27, 2012. We expect this is just the beginning for the Teahouse and hope the project will continue to grow in the months to come!

Thank you and congratulations to all of the community members who participated - and continue to participate!

• What you've all been waiting for: Teahouse Pilot Report is released! We look forward to your feedback on the methodology and outcomes of this pilot project.
• ....and if a pilot report wasn't enough, the Teahouse Pilot Metrics Report is out too! Dive into the numbers and survey results to learn about the impact the Teahouse has made on English Wikipedia.
• Teahouse shows positive impact on new editor retention and engagement

• 409 new editors participated during the entire pilot period, with about 40 new editors participating in the Teahouse per week.
• Two weeks after participating, 33% of Teahouse guests are still active on Wikipedia, as opposed to 11% of a similar control group.
• New editors who participated in the Teahouse edit 10x the number of articles, make 7x more global edits, and 2x as much of their content survives on Wikipedia compared to the control group.

• Women participate in the Teahouse 28% of Teahouse participants were women, up from 9% of editors on Wikipedia in general, good news for this project which aimed to have impact on the gender gap too - but still lots to be done here!
• New opportunities await for the Teahouse in phase two as the Teahouse team and Wikipedia community examine ways to improve, scale, and sustain the project. Opportunities for future work include:

• Automating or semi-automating systems such as invites, metrics and archiving
• Experimenting with more ways for new editors to discover the Teahouse
• Building out the social and peer-to-peer aspects further, including exploring ways to make answering questions easier, creating more ways for new editors to help each other and for all participants to acknowledge each other's efforts
• Growing volunteer capacity, continuing to transfer Teahouse administration tasks to volunteers whenever possible, and looking for new ways to make maintenance and participation easier for everyone.

• Want to know how you can lend a hand at the Teahouse? Become a host! Learn more about what makes the Teahouse different than other help spaces on Wikipedia and see how you can help new editors by visiting here.
• Say hello to the new guests at the Teahouse. Take the time to welcome and get to know the latest guests at the Teahouse. Drop off some wikilove to these editors today, as being welcomed by experienced editors is really encouraging to new Wikipedians.

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. Sarah (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Bilby! If you have some time to review the quality of some articles, we're using the results for a really important research project that will help shape the future of the US/Canada Education Program. For a few projects, we're on a pretty tight timeline and are really eager to have many more of these articles reviewed over the next week. However, we think it's most useful to come from experienced Wikipedia editors.

I have gone through each class to prioritize for various projects, and everyone on the Education team at the Wikimedia Foundation would be extremely grateful if you could participate by reviewing a few articles ('pre' and 'post' versions). If we can rally a lot of editors to review one or two articles each day, we will be able to make the most use of this research for our tight timeline. As many of our Ambassadors have requested it, we are really eager to find out which classes have been successful according to the Wikipedian standard.

If you can spare some time, please check out these priority articles and give it a go. Even 1 or 2 a day would help immensely! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

If the behavior of douchebags is considered to be well-defined (a reading of the relevant article seems to say so), and there is strong evidence that a person of historical notoriety behaved in such a manner, where does the line get drawn between political incorrectness and simple fact reporting? I wonder if there is some compromise between WP:POINT and WP:IAR, since Thomas Edison is the most excellent example of a douchebag. JW _|^|_| Talk 01:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit at INS Shakti (A57). Regards, Anir1uph (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I've left a note for you at Talk:Animal_rights#Singer_in_lead. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. I hope you are doing well. I noticed you haven't been that active in the Teahouse for quite sometime. No problem, of course. I do hope things are going well for you in other areas of Wikipedia, and offline as well! I have taken the liberty of moving your profile to the host breakroom for the time being. Feel free to move it back to the main host page whenever you are ready to jump back in. See ya =) Sarah (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Still nothing. Ready to close it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I was thinking of doing that over the weekend, but I'll take care of it now. - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If you get the chance, can you help review any of the following? They are my outstanding DYK nominations.

• Template:Did you know nominations/Jake Lappin
• Template:Did you know nominations/Kara Leo
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Cameron
• Template:Did you know nominations/Simon Patmore
• Template:Did you know nominations/Michael Roeger
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Silcocks
• Template:Did you know nominations/Damien Bowen
• Template:Did you know nominations/Stephanie Schweitzer
• Template:Did you know nominations/Kristy Pond
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Little
• Template:Did you know nominations/Katy Parrish
• Template:Did you know nominations/Jodi Elkington
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rachael Dodds
• Template:Did you know nominations/Kelly Cartwright
• Template:Did you know nominations/Georgia Beikoff
• Template:Did you know nominations/Carlee Beattie
• Template:Did you know nominations/Joann Formosa
• Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Bowman (equestrian)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Rob Oakley
• Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Bugg
• Template:Did you know nominations/Jannik Blair
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Vinci
• Template:Did you know nominations/Leanne Del Toso
• Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Vinci

Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bilby, thanks for your fantastic help with the references! Do you think it's ok to submit now? It's got references from 3 mainstream media publications, and I've got 5 more articles saved on my computer at home, from lesser-known online magazines etc. Also, can you tell me how to reply to your answer on the Teahouse forum? Or is it not possible for me? I wanted to write this there, but I couldn't workout how to! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggyspawn93 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well i had in mind one about NapoleonNapoleonicTrooper412 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the fifth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Guest activity increased in July. Questions are up from an average of 36 per week in June to 43 per week in July, and guest profile creation has also increased. This is likely a result of the automatic invite experiments we started near the end of month, which seeks to lessen the burden on hosts and other volunteer who manually invite editors. During the last week of July, questions doubled in the Teahouse! (But don't let that deter you from inviting editors to the Teahouse, please, there are still lots of new editors who haven't found Teahouse yet.)
• More Teahouse hosts than ever. We had 12 new hosts sign up to participate at the Teahouse! We now have 35 hosts volunteering at the Teahouse. Feel free to stop by and see them all here.
• Phase two update: Host sprint. In August, the Teahouse team plans to improve the host experience by developing a simpler new-host creation process, a better way of surfacing active hosts, and a host lounge renovation. Take a look at the plan and weigh in here.
• New Teahouse guest barnstar is awarded to first recipient: Charlie Inks. Using the Teahouse barnstar designed by Heatherawalls, hosts hajatvrc and Ryan Vesey created the new Teahouse Guest Barnstar. The first recipient is Charlie Inks, for her boldness in asking questions at the Teahouse. Check out the award in action here.
• Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania! The Teahouse was a hot topic at Wikimania this past month, where editor retention and interface design was heavily discussed. Sarah and Jonathan presented the Teahouse during the Wikimedia Fellowships panel. Slides can be viewed here. A lunch was also held at Wikimania for Teahouse hosts.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. SarahStierch (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

Hi, Bilby!

If you're still planning to work with a class in the US and Canada Education Program this Fall, please add your name to this census. Once the new class list is available, I will notify you guys so you can sign up for a class (or two) that interests you. I hope you're still interested in supporting these students for the coming term. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 17:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

SarahStierch (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I loved your gender gap interview on Radio National this week - that was such a great explanation of the Teahouse :-) Siko (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) The teahouse is one of the best projects for editor retention that I've seen on WP. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

WilliamH (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Kluger Agency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. Got a few questions about your Wikidragoning of an article I recently worked on - Greg Banaszak. >"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". Nope, the only things I share with this subject are a proud Polish heritage and a receding hairline. >"This biographical article needs additional citations for verification". I noticed the "citation needed" tag you added. The ARS doesn't publish its list of members but does confirm membership inquiries. >"This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". Is this in regards to the endorsement links that were posted? Each one has a list of notable endorseres on their sites.

Anyway, no major guff here. Just deferring to your experience on Wikipedia and wanted to know what you recommend needs to be done to remove the flags you've added to the article. Thanks.

Jmasiulewicz (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I've replied to the sourcing issues on the talk page, as it would be cool if we could get some help fixing that, and I'll try and dig up some sources to add. In regard to the COI issue, the problem was that you were paid to edit the article and provided with copy to add. The former isn't necessarily a problem, although the guideline recommends acknowledging the COI when editing, and you might want to see if you can get some general assistance through Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation. The main problem is working off copy provided by the client, as that would tend to bias the article. I doubt it is a big deal here, but I'm generally worried about articles with content written by the subject. - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. As with much of the writing I do on this site I was given raw data and source leads but the researching and eventual construction of the entire article is all me. As for the COI, I can't understand how the Wiki demigods can automatically assume that I have some connection to the subject (I don't even like classical music!). I'm a good researcher and a good writer - how that translates into COI I don't know.

In regards to the subject's affiliaton with the ARS, I have on file a copy of the actual letter of acceptance to the ARS, but wasn't sure if I should (and/or how I should) upload it onto the page. Jmasiulewicz (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there was no automatic assumption of a COI. But if you do choose to do such work, you may wish to look at current best practices. It isn't against policy to do so, but it might be more effective to be open about where a COI exists. That said, it is up to you how you choose to approach such situations and how open you choose to be if you do. - Bilby (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:CSD#G10 before you prod articles with it :-) --Surturz (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I did. The article comes across as a serious BLP violation, and there is no earlier version to revert to where that doesn't occur. - Bilby (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

PRODSpeedy has also been contested at the talkpage by Freebird15. Please remove the PRODCSD and relist at AfD (if you must). --Surturz (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting in an edit war. However, I feel that the purpose of any medium trying to inform is to present the information in a manner that is most applicable to it. I feel that the military conflict infobox, while perhaps lacking a bit in terminology, is most appropriate for what the article is saying, especially given the information. Would it be possible to create an infobox that removes terminology such as "belligerents" for something more appropriate for the topic, such as "participants" or "parties"? I would think that parties would work quite well in this situation.

I wrote some about this on Talk:Emu_War#Infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LusitsBotnet (talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, since you have edited the article in question, I wanted to let you know about this discussion. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to see you around - thanks for your helping hand on the dwarf article. :) BOZ (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good to work on D&D topics again. :) I'm still digging, but I think that one will be ok with all the work everyone put into it. I'll see what I can do to help on some of the others - I finally have a quiet semster. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, that's good to hear - it has been a while, LOL. There's a dwarf-related article up for AFD that could also use your help. BOZ (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks again for working on D&D articles, such as the basilisk. A huge chunk of them were redirected in the last few days (and months), and whatever you can help on would be appreciated. Many of them, you might not find anything for, but quite a few are worth looking for. I’m going to recommend the classics to focus on:

Aboleth, ankheg, chimera, dryad, griffon, harpy, lamia, nymph, and sphinx

Also, I bet with some searching, sources will turn up for Abyss and Iuz.

Not so much in the way of classics, but still probably worth checking into are: azer, bodak, brownie, demilich, deva, dracolich, and duergar

And if you get through those and feel like tackling some more... believe me, I can get you a list.  ;) If you don't have that kind of time, LOL, I can understand that – it's just that there were dozens of articles redirected, and the above is merely a sampling... BOZ (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work on AWU scandal. I think having a variety of opinions among editors improves balance and broadens the coverage in WT:AUSPOL articles. Your efforts have definitely improved the article. --Surturz (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. Maaaaate... you play D&D too? You're definitely in my good books now. :-) --Surturz (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't played D&D for a long time, but I started playing back with the basic rule set - I can still pretty much remember everything in Keep on the Borderlands. It's probably time to get my children into it, and keep the tradition going.:) In regard to the article, I've always loved what we can produce as collaborative works - it is invariably much better than what any of us could do on our own. Once again, it has been great working with different people on the article. - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Bilby, I see that you hvae taken this edit away ? The matter is currently being investigated by the Victoria Police - http://www.news.com.au/national/witnesses-quizzed-over-awu-scandal/story-fncynjr2-1226526127202

This is a fact and needs to be in there, Why did you remove this from the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorsetrader (talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, Abruptly was not a POV, it was abrupt because she had clearly stated that she had no intention of leaving Slater and Sordon, So she left Slater and gordon Out of the blue, abruptly, so it is not my point of view it is a fact.

Bilby, You have undid my edits without any references? any reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorsetrader (talk • contribs) 01:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"Abruptly" seems POV - especially given that the Australian's use of "abruptly" is countered by Andrew Grech, who said she took a leave of absence and didn't resign until the following year. It seems sufficient to simply say that she said she had no intention of leaving the firm, but then took a leave of absence before resigning. That way it remains neutral.

In reverting my previous edit, you also reverted the changes I'd made to the prose, which were necessary and didn't significantly change the meaning of neutrality of the text, so I needed to add that back.

In regard to your other two edits: this edit, where you added "never directly", is a problem, as according to the transcript she said "I did nothing wrong in the witnessing of this power of attorney" - that certainly feels like a direct denial. So just saying that she denied the allegation seems sufficient. And in regard to this edit, michaelsmithnews is not a reliable source, it doesn't say that a separate investigation is being run, (which seems unlikely anyway), but instead just states that it is being investigated, and your edit summary where you state that the power of attorney was illegal is a problem, as we have no idea if it was illegal or not. - Bilby (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Bilby , re:

I've also removed your second claim that Gillard is being separately investigated, because once again this is a significant BLP problem. You used two sources: michaelsmithnews [4], which is unreliable, and the Financial Review [5], which is not. Neither, however, say that she is being separately investigated -

Incorrect > the very headline of the Michael smith article is "Julia Gillard is currently facing very serious allegations and Victoria Police are investigating those allegations" this is as clear as it could be, What else would you prefer?

The FR article says: The Prime Minister could be caught up in a criminal investigation. Victorian police appear to be taking seriously an allegation made by serial campaigner Michael Smith.

You claim that Michael smith source is unreliable, however obviously Victoria Police and the Financial review don't think so. If it is reliable enough for Vic police to be taking the claim seriously then I'd think it is reliable enough for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhorsetrader (talk • contribs) 08:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at Freebird15's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Many thanks for the Barnstar Bilby. I was a bit surprised there were no articles about either of the Gretels. I'm not a yachtie but have fond memories of following Gretel II's progress when I was a kid. Later I might have a go at starting an article on the first Gretel, although I'm too 'young' to remember her 1962 challenge. Cheers, --Marcusaurelius161 (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby!

I think I know what you can work on, if you have time to contribute to D&D articles.  :) I believe we talked about this some time ago. On Red Hand of Doom, you contributed some good sourcing that I don't think anyone else had access to. Our first edition AD&D book articles are decently well-sourced; I guess back in the day, other companies were all too happy to write about TSR's newest releases, so that combined with an enduring nostalgia for the good old days leaves us well-covered for most books released in the first ten years of D&D or so. Our second edition book articles are somewhat sourced, because although reviews and such had been tapering off, there was still quite a bit being written about D&D; the challenge is, while we know that a lot of books had reviews, we have yet to actually track them down and add them. Now, our third edition book articles are in a really sad state – many of them are completely unreferenced, and for most of them we don't know if any independent sources exist at all. If you can see what you could to do fix that, I think it would help a lot. Red Hand of Doom is a very rare example of an article about a third edition book that is in great shape; most of them are not anywhere near that level of quality. Can you see what you can do to help out? Thanks in advance.  :) BOZ (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're interested, I could come up with some ideas on what needs sourcing the most. Let me know. :) BOZ (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to try. I've been digging around on the monsters, and have some sources for a couple of them, but generally they'll be difficult. Books might have more sources if we can dig enough. - Bilby (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Cool - finish up with the monsters first and we'll come back to this. :) BOZ (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you been able to have any further success with the sources for monsters? BOZ (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are concerned about preserving information on D&D monsters, you may be interested in joining the discussion at Talk:List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi bilby, the sources I have linked to describe the party as 'left-wing'. One such example is Encyclopedia of World Constititions Page 54 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M3A-xgf1yM4C&pg=PR23&lpg=PR23&dq=encyclopedia+of+world+constitutions&source=bl&ots=YdnwQpZEuo&sig=nziEolioj7GZIhu_oiEwdpN3mJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e7FCUL2BCYyZiAeBlYHoCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20of%20world%20constitutions&f=false Are you seriously suggesting we create a new rule for the Greens and ignore countless sources and the precedent with other Greens Parties being described as 'left-wing'? The precedent including other worldwide Green parties including Green Party of England and Wales, Green Party of the United States, Scottish Greens, Wales Green Party and Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. Whether we like it or not, these parties are all defined as 'Left-wing', most without sources. Another thing, party policies I have listed in the discussion broadly fit into Left-wing politics wiki article: '...generally support social change to create a more egalitarian society. They usually involve a concern for those in society who are disadvantaged relative to others and an assumption that there are unjustified inequalities'

What about The consensus behind infoboxes at this time, and universal use including with Australian parties? Why a new rule for one party? Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that the papers I've read so far all either qualify the use of left wing, or specifically differentiate Australian Greens fromm traditional left wing politics. This doesn't mean that there aren't left wing in a traditional economic sense - just that it is a complex issue, and the sources seem to be divided. - Bilby (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Left-wing politics mentions Green politics as being part of left-wing politics. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That's great, and maybe it is right. I'm happy if consensus is to add left wing to the infobox. My problem is that I've started reading various papers discussing the stance of the Australian Greens, and the discussion is complex. Part of the issue is the postmodernism/postmaterialism side of things - I'm never sure how much credibility to give that stance, but it seems that if you add that as a separate dimension, you get a more complex spectrum with the Australian Greens going in a different direction to left wing politics, but even without that some people try to differentiate the Australian Greens from the traditional distinction. Anyway, I'll keep reading - it may be that I'll end up agreeing that left wing is the correct term. - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your open mind. Here are some academic and other works that may interest you:

Encyclopedia of World Constititions Page 54 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M3A-xgf1yM4C&pg=PR23&lpg=PR23&dq=encyclopedia+of+world+constitutions&source=bl&ots=YdnwQpZEuo&sig=nziEolioj7GZIhu_oiEwdpN3mJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e7FCUL2BCYyZiAeBlYHoCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20of%20world%20constitutions&f=false

Left Turn by Antony Loewenstein http://books.google.com.au/books?id=M3A-xgf1yM4C&pg=PR23&lpg=PR23&dq=encyclopedia+of+world+constitutions&source=bl&ots=YdnwQpZEuo&sig=nziEolioj7GZIhu_oiEwdpN3mJs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e7FCUL2BCYyZiAeBlYHoCg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=encyclopedia%20of%20world%20constitutions&f=false

Endame for the West in Afghanistan study http://books.google.com.au/books?id=YZCpm7n4JoIC&pg=PT24&lpg=PT24&dq=australian+greens+left-wing&source=bl&ots=yVzH-p--S4&sig=iYYk2CRmwGpXO-noLdbvkY0eMVw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=prFCUNKeE42XiQf4mIHQDQ&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=australian%20greens%20left-wing&f=false

The Death of Social Democracy by Ashley Lavelle http://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Death_of_Social_Democracy.html?id=e-V-2PYJWVkC&redir_esc=y

Ideas and Actions in the Green Movement http://books.google.com.au/books?id=4zJcjo9fofsC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=australian+greens+left-wing&source=bl&ots=F9dNFD_Ouj&sig=9lHoKPnVudRDGy9S0rJgSjpRDhc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=prFCUNKeE42XiQf4mIHQDQ&ved=0CGMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=australian%20greens%20left-wing&f=false Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

And here is a Greens magazine where the Greens are described as 'clearly left-wing' http://wa.greens.org.au/system/files/private/GI%20webaugust2012.pdf Welshboyau11 (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at Johnmoor's talk page.
Message added 10:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Can you keep an eye on Euthanasia, please? The discussion on Talk:Euthanasia is going nowhere. I have the feeling (but am not sure) that ArtifexMayhem, Arc de Ciel and KillerChihuahua are bluntly ignoring the facts and the present consensus to force in a POV-text. Strange enough, seeing the history, I have found ClaudioSantos on my side in this case. Some more eyes/opinions are needed to avoid the now looming editwar. The Banner _talk 17:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe you meant "have a different opinion on the best phrasing for the article" - and I remind you that "He is POV, I am neutral" is how everyone views their own edits. Perhaps if you worked with others on the talk page rather than insulting everyone and accusing them of edit warring, when you are simply reverting any proposed or attempted modification, you would have better success. I suggest that engaging in civil and respectful discussion on the talk page will make more difference than seeking a partner to tag team your protection of your preferred wording. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I remember, Bilby edits very carefully and strives to adhere to the sources, so for me it seems a disrespect to suggest he is being looked for "tag team" as if he was propense to endorse such actions, instead of being looked for an objective opinion. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The reason I have asked Bilby to "take a look" is twofold. I know him as an independent editor, no quickly to take sides. And secondly, he has prior involvement in articles about euthanasia and related articles. So I expect him to have at least a bit of knowledge. That you, KillerChihuahua, see that as something dodgy and yucky, is entirely your opinion. I still regard Bilby as an independent onlooker. The Banner _talk 02:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look. My understanding is that the issue is a complex one - I've read a few papers on the law in the Netherlands, but they were a little while ago - I'll try and catch up on the papers to see if there is anything I can offer. - Bilby (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 21:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

SarahStierch (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome to the sixth edition of The Tea Leaf, the official newsletter of the Teahouse!

• Teahouse serves over 700 new editors in six months on Wikipedia! Since February 27, 741 new editors have participated at the Teahouse. The Q&A board and the guest intro pages are more active than ever.

• Automatic invites are doing the trick: 50% more new editors visiting each week. Ever since HostBot's automated invite trial phase began we've seen a boost in new editor participation. Automating a baseline set of invitations also allows Teahouse hosts to focus on serving hot cups of help to guests, instead of spending countless hours inviting.
• Guests to the Teahouse continue to edit more & interact more with other community members than non-Teahouse guests according to six month metrics. Teahouse guests make more than twice the article edits and edit more talk pages than other new editors.
• New host process implemented which encourages anyone to get started as a Teahouse host in a few easy steps. Stop by the hosts page and become a Teahouse host today!
• Host lounge renovations nearing completion. Working closely with Teahouse hosts, we've made some major renovations to the Teahouse Host Lounge - the main hangout and resource space for hosts. Learn more about the improvements here.

As always, thanks for supporting the Teahouse project! Stop by and visit us today!

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby! Are you interested in being the Online Ambassador for any classes this term? We've got a few classes that are looking for ambassador right now (Canada, US), so if you're up for helping any, please do! Let me know if you have any questions, or if you'd like me to pick a course for you.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine - we're coming to the end of the teaching year here, and I have a lighter than normal load. I'll have a look and see if there is anything in particular I can offer to help on, but if you have something in mind or a gap to fill just let me know. - Bilby (talk) 05:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'll find a gap for you to fill in a few days, if you don't find one that suits you first.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You can go ahead and add your name to the courses you'd like to work with, and let the professors know you've volunteered as well.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I Dont Know whether you had read what i was actually requesting

What is the trade mark of Biography copyright????? if somebody tells me to omit each and everything which comes in similar to another biography,I will have to write another story about sr rani maria,which will look unreliable.

that may be one of the reason wikipedia looks unreliable......there are many articles i can point out.....

i am not forcing you to think If you are ignorant please leave it.

i told not to delete completely but to edit it.

ANYBODY CAN REMOVE A WHOLE CONTRIBUTION.IF u dont know you completely deleted my contribution.

IT IS MY OWN WORK OF 5 DAYS AND IT IS EASIEST FOR ANYONE TO DELETE IT. IT IS NOT A COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. I DONT KNOW HOW YOU CONCLUDE IT AS A COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL?????

I DOES NOT APPROVE YOUR DELETIONIST POLICY.--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)--Johnyjohny294 (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi.At h moment I'm stuck on an iPad with a bad Internet connection, so I'm afraid I won't be able to respond properly until later. But I'll try and explain the issue and how you can address the deletion request as soon as I get home tonight. - Bilby (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at Sub specie aeternitatis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Thanks for joining us! I'm afraid I may be the first to ask for some help. I haven't been able to edit the Article Banner instructions and details. I'd like the students to place banners on Talk Pages but they are not creating new articles. The information about banners was placed by the course page wizard and I can't see where to edit it. You will see it [[Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Environment and Society - Fall 2012 (Grant Aylesworth)/Articles|here]. Thanks, Sub specie aeternitatis (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the bit specifically about new articles... that was added into to the basic course page template after someone noticed a few people making that mistake, but it wasn't really supposed to be hard-coded into the course page template. Let me know if that was what you were talking about.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. I noticed that you added a COI tag to ViSalus, which was totally warranted given the non-encyclopedic promotional verbiage that was recently added. I reverted the addition of the new text and that seems to have eliminated the immediate need for the COI tag, but please feel free to restore it if you disagree. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, We spent a lot of time putting the article together and cleaning it up. The tags that you added dont apply for the entire article, we added appropriate references for the article and all sections were updated with the latest information. Please remove the tags and let us know what exactly needs to be fixed and we can work on that. It would be really great if you can reply back on my talk page rather than adding these tags. Also you undid the bio section that we modified recently. The article has been authorized by Skyzoo and Skyzoo has sent all necessary permissions. The copyright material that you were concerned about, can you point to the exact sentence?Pilot03 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Bibly, Would it be possible to revert the changes back to where it was and then I can re-work on modifying the sources. There were numerous changes that were made and some of them are not accurate. Incorrect information has been added. Can we semi-protect the article? What would you suggest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilot03 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby! In regards to "My understanding is that MooshiePorkFace and the originator of that email are different people." - you are correct. I don't even think this would be "outing", but in case it somehow is, I'll just give you the name of a random (confirmed) sock of Mooshie's.[6] Cheers :> Doc talk 07:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby

you have deleted great tracts of the Dyers biography with slashing rapidity. Would a more nuanced approached be more helpful? Coatracking, sure - however, a public record should show factual information, most especially when the figure trades or traded, or suggests they have traded in the public arena. What could be more relevant than the archived governmental documents that leave a trace of his or her life? This article is a repository of the public record. If it is not cute and happy it does not necessarily follow that it is contrived, or unbalanced or biased. Much of what you have removed are hotly contested sections that are accurate and truthful, and in many cases give an insight into a personality that was probably complex. Where a man publicly records his war record, and trades on it, by invitation he draws any revelations that would shed light on that. In this instance, the fellow used his war record to suggest young girls should stop making silly allegations of sexual molestation about him. Fair enough if he is innocent and is a war hero as he had suggested. However, he has introduced the matter into the public domain, and he has made this a significant part of his persona. He has, in your parlance, hung his coat on his rack by his own doing. The many protestations of his followers, in the public domain, have introduced further gamentry to his cloistered cupboard. Each step inviting clarification I suppose. What is an article supposed to do... How often have you seen the Australian Army take the step of asking a returned servicemen from the ninth div to refrain from using the Armies Rising Sun Badge, or seen the President of the RSL make a stand against an ex serviceman? Not often. Is this not an important part of a historical record? Should it be left out? If we leave that out, what then do we leave in? It is pretty big stuff really, in a mans life. When he and his followers declare he was exonerated by the high court, and the actual statement is available for the discerning reader to help them make a reasonable assumption about what may or may not have been said by the high court judges, should we not include that as a guidance towards better understanding. If you look at the way this page was built, you will see the main thrust of it has been developed to stop claims being made that were unsubstantiated, or biased. Generally a reference has been found to bring to an end argy bargy on subjects where the fellow left a great deal of confusion. Anyway, I would be interested in your thoughts, legalist (Legalist (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC))

Hi Bilby.. your right, if you look at the kenja website, very little happens without reference to Dyers. Kenja is the body that listened to, and now espouses his teachings. To have a Kenja entry and not include him misses the point. That much of what the group is, or appears to stand for is shaped by the court cases Dyers was involved in is apparent also. He is central to the group and his memory pervades it. To have an entry in under his name would invite the development of entries about Kenja. The two are intractibly linked. Your reservations about the perception of bias are sound, but what would you have. As has been pointed out, this is a record of public documentation. In one instance, a finding by the High Court of Australia, in another, his War record as found from the Australian Archives. A reference to his time in Scientology and other elements. You may see it as biased, and it does not add up to a pretty picture, but there it is, undeniable, and uncontested by his followers who have pored over this entry and removed everything they can. Even they have to leave that which is uncontestable. There is debate about this fellow, and it is important that bedrock facts are able to sit in the public domain so investigators and those with interest can make informed decisions. Wikipedia should be an active tool for the storing of sound information, that which major public institutions and organs, who are themselves highly accountable, have published. If it doesnt look good, it may not be the fault of the messengers, who have consolidated the information, or the wikipedian entry. I dont see it as biased, and I am not biased. As the claims made for his case appeared on this site, I was easily able to find records that seemed to quell the language being used. The result is invevitable, its not a good track record, it doesnt read well but it is accurate and based on sound research. There are few empirical positives to add to this story. The claim that he cured cancers can be made, but should not be published here without the AMA's written support, and that is not going to happen. He appears to have a claim to advanced psychiatric or psychological diagnostic skills. Yet again, he would need the written approvals from an organisation unlikely to offer them. His caim to be highly creative with children is severly compromised. He claimed to have worked only for a pittance and for the betterment of humanity, noble and worthy of comment as many great leaders have one acclaim this way, but his cliff top mansion, passion for yachts and his extremely wealthy estate which passed to his wife seem to contradict even this. His followers have begrudgingly accepted the substance of what is up on the wikipedia entry, and I think it is relevant tot he site, and more uncompromised than biased (Legalist (talk) 11:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC))

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

Did you have anything that might help improve this article? :) BOZ (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! :) I know that User:Torchiest wants to take that one to GA, so any help we can give is great. BOZ (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 00:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

SarahStierch (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2012 (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.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby. I read in your comment on the SignPost that you have been watching paid editing freelancers and evaluating their work.

Many of my most substantial contributions are with a COI as EthicalWiki and I actually solicited for feedback on my contributions | here a while back. If you're interested, I would welcome your feedback on how I can become a better contributor to Wikipedia both with a COI and in my volunteer contributions. Corporate 21:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Uriahdan is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

Do you know if the sockpuppet contribs have been investigated/cleaned yet? MER-C 04:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been working through them - there aren't many articles concerned, and so far everything I've checked has already been removed. Both cases were picked up by the community, and were mostly handled that way. My main concern is whether or not there are more socks, but I'll see how the SPI emerges - I've been going through the articles concerned, though, and only the two other editors really jumped out so far. - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Bilby! I have said more at The Teahouse, but a big thank you. Open Research (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, if you accept my request, there are a number of issues (serious ones and light ones) I would like to receive your orientation. Up to now people I have tried to contact are either too busy to address my doubts or do no know how. Please check my page to see about my contributions. I only write about what I know. Hopefully, Tat Sat (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2012 (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.

Tat Sat (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bilby. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse/Host_lounge.
Message added 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

SarahStierch (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Joseph_L._Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

diff - seems a shame not to - many thanks for your work - Youreallycan 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, G5 doesn't strictly apply, but in the "created by a bad hand account" just before it was caught limit, but where it would've been already blocked if someone had noticed, I'm often inclined to delete it anyways. I wouldn't delete it for a user blocked for unrelated reasons. But given that I'm a bit off the reservation, I'm perfectly happy to undelete and send to AfD, if you like. WilyD 08:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've brought the question up here. 09:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I am just wondering how to change the details of an existing citation on a Wikipedia article. Is there a simple way of doing this, or should I simply delete the existing citation and re-add it with the additional information I have on the source? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalaRollins (talk • contribs) 13:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your knowledge and your reply! SalaRollins — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalaRollins (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Would "...should refrain from initiating any deletion processes related...", satisfy your concern? That way they can still participate in deletion processes, they just can't initiate them. My primary concern is COI influenced destruction of adverse or competitor articles, which can and has occurred "under the radar" in the past. Gigs (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've put up a new draft. I changed the deletion wording to say "should not initiate deletion processes", to allow for Afd discussion. I reduced the emphasis on ethical codes a little bit. It's important to keep in mind it only creates a conflict if the ethical code requires something of them that's incompatible with Wikipedia's principles. Ethical codes that simply require someone to not spread false information, for example, are fine, and would not be covered by this. Gigs (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you finished with this request yet? P.S. As there were no objections, I have added you to the CCI clerk list. MER-C 12:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I got most of the way through before another sock turned up. I'll finish it off now - it is, surprisingly, more enjoyable than marking. As are most things. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

All done bar one article - that one isn't clear as to whether the source copied from WP or the other way around, so I'm doing some checks. I'll finish that off in the morning when they're done. - Bilby (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And archived. Thank you for dealing with this timewaster. MER-C 06:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Bilby, I find myself editing an article I care little about (Ian Stevenson), which deals with an issue I don't care about at all (reincarnation). But something is happening there that I'm digging my heels in about, because it goes to the heart of sourcing on WP, which is something I do care about. Because it concerns a philosopher, I'm looking for someone with training in philosophy to offer an opinion at Wikipedia:RSN#Robert_Almeder.

In summary: Ian Stevenson was a psychiatrist who spent his life interviewing children who claimed to remember past lives. His work attracted a lot of interest, including from two philosophers, Robert Almeder, professor emeritus at Georgia State University, and Paul Edwards, who taught at the New School for Social Research. Almeder liked Stevenson's work and Edwards thought it was nonsense. They went back and forth about it -- Almeder wrote about Stevenson in his 1992 book, Death and Personal Survival, then in his Reincarnation (1996) Edwards criticized Stevenson and Almeder's defence of him. And in 1997 Almeder published this rejoinder to Edwards.

I would like to summarize all this material in the article (the criticism from Edwards and the support from Almeder), and in particular would like to include a definition of Almeder's "minimalist reincarnation hypothesis," which Stevenson subscribed to. However, Almeder published his 1997 rejoinder, including the definition, in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. This is a fringe journal (parapsychology, past lives, UFOs), edited by another philosopher, Stephen E. Braude, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Because the journal is fringe, editors are saying I may not use Almeder's 1997 rejoinder as a source. I am arguing that it doesn't matter where Almeder published it, because he's a mainstream academic in a relevant field who has written about this issue elsewhere. They say reliability resides in the place of publication. I say it resides in the author. (Note: there are no BLP issues.)

Do you have a view? If so it would be very helpful if you could add a comment to the RSN. I have no idea whether you will agree or disagree with me, but I always respect your opinion and am often persuaded by it. I've also asked for input on the philosophy wikiproject, but no luck so far. But if you're too busy or not interested, I'll completely understand (and sympathize), so feel free to ignore this request. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll definitly have a look - I'm caught up in marking the final exams at the moment, but an excuse to escape taht is always worth taking. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I fear that by the time you've looked at the length of the discussion on the RSN, you'll be looking for an excuse to get back to marking.

There are two key sections: one starting with a question from Blueboar saying that the entire academic debate (including the disputed essay) should be included if it was significant, regardless of where the essay was published, and he has requested details to allow him to judge that. So I have included the publication sequence of the debate, and details of who responded to what; see Wikipedia:RSN#Publication_sequence. I have also been in touch with the author, Robert Almeder, who has responded to some of the points that have been raised against his essay; see Wikipedia:RSN#Response_from_the_author.

Just to recap, the issue is whether this essay by Almeder is a reliable source for the article Ian Stevenson. The argument against is that it was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The argument for is that reliability rests with the author qua expert, not with the publication. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I saw that you were a member of the Cooperation Wikipedia project, and was hoping you might be able to help me with something. I've recently been working on behalf of the company Mindjet to make some small updates to their WP page. Because of my COI, I posted a summary of my proposed changes over at Talk:Mindjet, and User:Silverseren has taken a preliminary look at them. However, he'd like some consensus from other editors about the changes before they are moved into the mainspace. I was hoping you might be willing to pop over and take a quick look at what I've suggested, and provide some feedback? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Done! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 23:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

1. RECIPIENTS (CATEGORY) -->

So I nominated an article for deletion and it told me to inform the article's creator. So I went to their page and they're listed as a sock puppet... Do i inform a wikipedian sock puppet that one of their article was nominated for deletion? The user is Uriahdan and since he's a sock puppet I'm guessing I don't have to inform him? Mrmoustache14 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to bring this case to your attention as I have namechecked you. There seems to be behavioral similarity to a previous case, but I would welcome your opinion, as many cases do look the same. Logical Cowboy (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chicken parmigiana, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Examiner, The Mercury and Subway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am in need of assistance fixing a citation on an article. the article Envirothon's first citation, The Official Envirothon Website, leads to a dead link, which was posted before the creation of Envirothon's current official website. Rather than sorting through the whole article to re-source all the information to the new website, is their an easy way of replacing the faulty link? Thank you, I look forward to your reply! SalaRollins — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalaRollins (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, Thanks for your messages! My concern is around the unfair presentation of material on the page. I appreciate your help and am happy to assist with sources if necessary, Trinnylarue (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ksanthosh89 is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Druidhills is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

--MER-C 10:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

-- MST☆R ^{(Merry Christmas!)} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Xmas2)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi, Bilby! I know you did a lot of work on the kender article a while ago. I was wondering if you could find any additional sources for Goldmoon, Raistlin Majere, Caramon Majere, Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Tanis Half-Elven, Riverwind, and Kitiara uth Matar? We are trying to make sure we meet the WP:GNG at minimum, and preferably exceed that and truly improve the articles. I will probably be starting a merge discussion on the character list talk page soon, but was hoping to find more sources first. BOZ (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also restored Sturm Brightblade and Flint Fireforge; do you know of any sources for those? BOZ (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:VLine logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Bilbo! Is your request already open? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, Thanks for the South Australia paragraph on Vexatious_litigation. Do you have access to the 2 articles you referenced but could not find online: Henderson, Nick. (19 July 2005). "Legal History in the Making as Woman Faces Courts Ban: Litigant has her day in court – maybe for the last time." The Advertiser, Adelaide, South Australia. p10. and Hough, Andrew. (12 November 2005). "Serial litigant barred". The Advertiser, Adelaide, South Australia. p25. Also I'd like to at least add back the Andrew Garrett paragraph at the bottom in the Notable vexatious litigants section because Andrew Garrett is notable in South Australia. Any comment? Philiashasspots (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby,
remember Uriahdan? From the CCI and the SPI?
Well, he's kinda back. I managed to get him to talk, and hopefully made him see what's been going wrong and what he needs to do differently from now on. He seems to be accepting, although it's rather difficult to talk with him.
Anyhow, I'll be following his edits to see the he doesn't make the same mistakes again, but I was wondering what to do about his other accounts' edits. Since you've spearheaded the CCI cleanup I thought I'd talk to you first. First, which of his accounts did you already check? I'm guessing Queenfanuriah, Uriahdan, and Rubalieta? Also, could you by any chance be persuaded to go through the remaining edits as well? If not then that's of course no problem, I'll just reopen the old one and list them there.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I went through all of the known accounts, from memory. I'll go through anything that is left, and I'll keep an eye on Sabbathbloodness - I was aware of the new account, but I hadn't decided how to address it yet, and I'm very happy to see how things go with your approach. :) Constant blocks don't really fix anything, so hopefully this will work out better. - Bilby (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Amalthea 14:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

ahem ... ?! Is it possible to reply to my question three sections above? I mean you have already read it... Thank you, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I haven't been on much lately. But no, that isn't needed any more. I think the article was deleted. Did you want me to close the request? - Bilby (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I called you to close the request. Why should it stay online, if the request is not needed any more? I will close it now; thank you very much for your reply, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am still having trouble with Yeti Hunter over the Double Gammas. when we reached consensus to merge he deleted the page, and refused to replace the list of award winners on the Doctor Who in Australia page. i have informed him repeatedly I am unable to replace the list but he refuses to perform the edit himself. This constitutes vandalism but he insists is was good faith. MartinSFSA (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby; we have the annual picnic Saturday.

The problem is a deleter who keeps removing content, despite us going through the whole review process and receiving consensus for it to remain. Despite telling him I am unable to merge the list (for sixteen months now) they refuse to do anything except assert it was justified as they couldn't find it via a "gnews search" (I asked if they used the same criteria for the Hugos or Nebulas) and telling me I am free to replace the list. I also don't know what to do about the content, but do know what I'd like to do to the other user: report them for vandalism. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adelaide High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rowing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

• Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
• Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Woo hoo!

I see you're moving up in the wiki-world! Congratulations!!
But that's not why I'm here.

First: Happy New Year!

adelaide-wiki-meetup

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

Second: Are there any adelaide-wiki-meetups planned?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And Happy New Year to you as well. :) It has started well, so I retain hope.

We were discussing trying something for mid-February. One of the suggestions was to try out something a tad more formal: I have this great space at City West that is under utilized, and both near a pub and with a good pizza supplier. :) So we were discussing a regular event with a bit of a talk about something wiki-related every month or so, along with pizza and/or beer. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Rest of discussion moved to Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 8
--Pdfpdf (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Feb meetup?

Any progress? (My diary is starting to fill with unavoidable appointments.) Pdfpdf (talk) 07:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll head in over the next couple of days and confirm which evenings are free, but I have an in principal agreement about the space. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I am attempting to get my second article added to main space and wonder if you could help. My first stab at the article is here and I have submitted it and waiting for the Admins to look at it. It may get moved to here. Can you suggest any edits/problems? I'd appreciate your input. Any Wikistalkers are welcome to comment as well ;-) Philiashasspots (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on having it accepted so quickly - that's great work! I'll see if there is anything I can do to help, but it is already pretty good. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, Thanks - It was a surprise being accepted so quickly. I need to start understanding how the categories work and add some at the bottom. Also review and add as resources each states Law Society, LPCB, LPDT, Bar association and other legal organizations. I hope someone who knows how about spelling, capitalization and apostrophes better than me reviews the article and fixes any mistakes I have. Philiashasspots (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am inviting you to contribute to a discussion at Talk:Trust_money#Possible_merge_with_IOLTA_and.2For_creation_of_Lawyer_Trust_Account that you may be interested in. Philiashasspots (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

FYI. (RSVP appreciated.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I'd just sent you an email regarding that. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There you go! (I've replied.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, you've been cropping up on my watchlist fixing a fair few copyvios on cricket related articles. You seem to be coming across them a lot, is there a single person who has been making the copyvios? Nev1 (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the edits are by User:Dileepvee. I've been running a quick CCI to clean things up - where the number of edits were fairly small, I sometimes just handle it myself, rather than adding to the backlog at WP:CCI. (Which is huge at the moment). In this case I've only got about three articles still to check. I've raised the issue with Dileepvee, and I'm keeping an eye on whether or not this starts up again. Hopefully I can explain how to avoid the problem and things will be good - if not, I guess we'll end up at ANI. But I prefer to avoid that if less dramatic solutions are viable. :) - Bilby (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent approach to take. I'm glad you've got the matter in hand. Nev1 (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Short term block proposal. Thank you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Wizard in Rhyme, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Wizard and Allemagne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I presume you removed the link in my Talk message because of a policy violation. Could you direct me to the part of policy that applies, or even better, quote the excerpt too? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! The problem is one of contributory liability - under US law, linking to a copyright violation is itself a copyright violation. That's why we have WP:LINKVIO, which prevents us from linking to copyright violating material. Although that particular policy only refers to external links, the general principle is that we don't really want to link to a violation even within WP, with practical exceptions occasionally sneaking in. Normally it would be worth looking at removing the problematic revisions as well, but I find that tends to vary based on which admin is looking at the problem. In this case my feeling was just that the link might raise some concerns, so was better removed, but I had no problems with the principle of what you were saying, and I hope that others can help expand the article. (I've been able to dig up a few more worthwhile references in some of the news databases, but I'm not to sure how to work them in yet, and they will leave an awful lot of gaps anyway). - Bilby (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I can see you are trying to be careful, but it seems to me that it is inappropriately restrictive. The link in my message doesn't create any link that isn't already existing in Wikipedia, viz. on the article's history page, and that goes for probably the vast majority of the copyright violations that have been deleted from Wikipedia articles. So could you restore the link to my Talk page message? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Normally, we would remove the links from the history as well. I didn't request that so as to help people build on the article, but technically it would be better to do so. - Bilby (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen that before, and I suspect it is a rare occurrence. Perhaps it has been done where the violation causes significant harm to the copyright holder's income, but that isn't the case here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is generally better to remove copyright violations altogether, including from the history, but that tends to be left to a bit of discretion. The policy allows for requesting revision deletion, but the extent to which that is used is unclear - I prefer to fully deleted articles where the problem is foundational, for example, but I know of some admins who would rather rewrite the article. I think copyright policy on WP is one of the more problematic areas, and perhaps not fully understood by anyone but people like Mer-C and Moonriddengirl. :) Generally I prefer to err on the side of caution as much as possible. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. It's been interesting. After considering what you wrote, I don't think there is sufficient reason to delete the link in my Talk page message to the previous version of the article where the copyright violation occurred, which is the same link that occurs on the history page of the article. So I will restore it. I think you have good intentions that are misguided, but I'm always open to new ideas.

BTW, you mentioned that "Normally, we would remove the links from the history as well." Is that what you routinely do when you delete copyright violations from articles? I started to look for recent examples in your contribution list, but perhaps you could direct me to the last time that you did that. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

By "we" I was referring to standard practice - as I'm not an admin, and don't wish to be one, I don't have the option. I do nominate articles for CSD where the copyright problems are severe, though. Naturally, they wouldn't show up on contributions.

That said, there is no advantage to your link. It only links to a copyright violation that can't be used, on the basis that you wish to provide access to the sources. By providing the sources themselves on the talk page, it seems we remove the need for the link, and any problems with providing links to copyright violations. I can't see a good argument for providing it, and I can see a good one for leaving it out, especially given that we can't use any of the text you are linking to. - Bilby (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I found it useful. For example, I used it for guidance in restoring rewritten sections.

Re "By 'we' I was referring to standard practice - as I'm not an admin, and don't wish to be one, I don't have the option." — Then could you direct me to the last time you made such a request of an admin? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In using the copyrighted text as guidance, you need to be particularly careful not to produce a derivative work, which is clearer as an infringement where it can be shown that you have developed it from the original text.

In regard to revdel, perhaps instead I should just direct you to the relevant policy? Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101. In particular, the part recommending revision deletion where appropriate. The difficulty we have is trying to find a balance between meeting our obligations under copyright law, providing proper attribution, and retaining viable content. - Bilby (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

Please note what I wrote in my message at the Talk page, which seems to show that we are of like mind on development of the article.

"The sources that were deleted with the material can be researched for material to add to the article, being careful not to just copy and paste, which is a copyright violation."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bilby! Thanks for your neat answer at the Teahouse about removing talkpage messages. The idea that a removed message is a seen message is unintuitive but quite helpful. Thanks for chiming in!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ask the Leyland Brothers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Art Baker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we've had a little excitement! Moving on....

I hadn't thought of WP:ABOUTSELF before in our discussion until I recently posted it. For me at least, it clarifies the situation. I hope it does for you too.

Oh, and my recent post in the earlier section about the link. It was just meant to put in the link to our previous conversation here and wasn't trying to make any point. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change anything. I agree that primary sources can be used. But the issue is the extent on which they can be relied on, and, all else being equal, independent sources are going to be abetter choice than non-independent ones. - Bilby (talk)

The reason it was denied was the lag on the edit counter kept him from seeing my current edit count.Cmckain14 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:

• We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.

• We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. Add it here. You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.

• Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!

• And...for all of your great work and all of the progress that you've helped the Teahouse make, we hereby award you the Host Badge:

	Teahouse Host Badge
	Awarded to hosts at the Wikipedia Teahouse. Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time. Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I wondered whether you would be able to write some summaries for the remaining episodes of Wizards vs Aliens series 1 to replace the ones you removed. Frogkermit (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be able to finish them soon - I'm only about half way through watching the episodes, but I should be able to finish them on Friday. - Bilby (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Frogkermit (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the adm barnstar he left at my talk page and sent him a note, noting his sarcasm but extending a helping hand. If I would have noticed his vandalism on my talkpage, I may not have been so nice. lol! Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I was happy to help. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

....good catch. I feel a little stupid now about granting rollback, but he seemed decent enough, perhaps a bit overeager. But there you go. Thanks again, and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he had to choose that path - I think he would have had a chance if he'd just asked to be unblocked, as ArbCom had suggested. He certainly seemed to be doing much better. - Bilby (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Driftwooddrwho is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

Wizardman 16:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)