"Obsessive newspaper-hater" Hillbillyholiday, yesterday. Note: revealing predilection for unfortunate facial hair


A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Excellent work in opening the RfC on the Daily Mail. Its presence on what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia is a constant source of embarrassment! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bounder. I hear the Guardian are to publish something about this. Really didn't expect the RfC to pass and was beginning to regret using Mail-style tactics of blatant sensationalization and flagrant misrepresentation of sources; it seemed rather 'poetic' at the time. Anyway, job's a good'un, I'm off to hide somewhere where Dacre won't find me. --Hillbillyholiday talk

Jackson, Jasper (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source for website". The Guardian. --Hillbillyholiday talk

A Defender of the Wiki barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Echoing the above, well done for the RfC. John (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. A real highpoint for you, I think. God's Little Dacre 123 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defender? Ouch! They'll have to retire my Wikipediocracy account.
A good time to bow out from wp for the foreseeable -- with God's help I may finally beat this terrible addiction*. Something suitably immature to remember me by. --Hillbillyholiday talk (*to both wikipedia and hillbilly heroin, though wikipedia is the more devastating)
....and you'll get more sense out of a decent slice of horse. Paul "Superfly" Lucas 123 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Another barnstar for you!

The Press Barnstar
I applaud your selflessness. I'm sure I read somewhere that posting negatively on WP:RSN causes cancer, while posting positively cures it. Hurrah for the whitehats! Narky Blert (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian

Hey, you made the news today: Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen it myself. While you know my opinions on the Mail ("It's about as trustworthy as Jimmy Savile in the Cheltenham Ladies' College") I can't help thinking there would be very occasional exceptions on shopping or fashion articles that flesh out a story that isn't easily covered by other sources. Still, I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over this. Mind you, I can't help noticing the irony of somebody adding to an article criticising the Mail by citing the Mirror - WTF? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... or even on the health issues of former former Royal Nannies? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Saw you mentioned in The Grauniad this morning, but have only just remembered to send my congratulations! I half-thought that you'd be having more problems over here with trolls than the Three Billygoats Gruff did, but I'm glad to see I was wrong. JezGrove (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Named in Fix News and The Observiant and even the moderate and dependable Rutland Today. Is nothing sacred. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC) ...but great to see the RfC decision has proved popular all round down here at the Wikipedia dog track.[reply]
..."a clearly obsessive newspaper-hater who hides behind the pseudonym Hillbillyholiday". Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-oh, you'll be the subject of one of Dacre's infamous newsroom Vagina monologues... JezGrove (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Shouting creates energy," he said. "Energy creates great headlines." Geranium Greer 123 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I hope you still get your messages despite your wikibreak. I noticed you've been involved in the Daily Mail issue (thank you for that, by the way). I was wondering if the Washington Examiner is a reliable source (e.g. this http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2608342?platform=hootsuite). Alma (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alma, no idea, sorry. Ask at WP:RS/N. --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heures de Charles d'Angoulême has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Hillbillyholiday. Heures de Charles d'Angoulême, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And no banned miniature sources. Congratulations. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Photo

Love the new photo - "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" (Oops, can’t seem to find a RS for that one….!) Of course, the Mail loves us, too: [1] PS: I see you'll be back soon JezGrove (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the Daily Mail reporter outside my mum's flat just now...

Don't come back.

Despite not being in top shape, I am still pretty handy.

I have almost nothing to lose.

Ask here on this page if you want to know anything about me.

Stop harassing my family.

Hillbillyholiday talk

More