Talk:Bill Hillmann/Archive 1

Poorly referenced
This article only just scrapes through on notability the sources are extremely poor. For instance the article says "Hillmann has run with the bulls in Spain over 300 times" the source says 35? I'm not sure how running with the bulls even adds to notability? Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's completely incorrect Theroadislong. You are attacking this article in a trashy way. Don't worry though other's have tried to attack it and lost and you will too. Another petty wiki editor. But I am now confident there are real logical wiki editors out there. And you're in luck, I've got plenty of time and energy to duke it out. My sources are plenty and my sources are the top news outlets in the world The Chicago Tribune, Chicago Public Library, New York Times, Toronto Star, Daily Mail, Times of India, The Australian, People Magazine, NBC Today, CBS This Morning, CNN, CNN International Publisher's Weekly, Chicago Sun Times and plenty more even a bunch in other languages! If you don't like the running of the bulls, sorry. A million people from all over the world show up to see it and participate every year. It is very popular and has tremendous history and significance in Spain. Ever hear of a guy named Hemingway? Yeah me neither he just won the Nobel Prize in literature.
 * Now you have four sources as evidence against what ever of the dozens of sources you are referencing with the 35 number. It's funny the sources from major outlets are so plenty that even when he only had 35 runs under his belt, he already had major news outlets writing about him and he was already considered a expert journalist on the subject publishing in major outlets. What the heck does notability even mean? Oh it means that people take note. So what does it mean with the biggest news outlets in the world make notes about a person and publish them in their outlet? Oh it means the person is notable.


 * I'm ready when you are buddy let's roll. The last group that claimed Hillmann wasn't notable got smacked down and scolded by real wiki editors, you will too!


 * Read up on it! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill_Hillmann. And if you're too lazy to do research which I suspect you are from your trashy language. Here's an excerpt of the final word on the last person who tried to get this deleted. After several others said Hillmann has obvious notability.


 * So please keep your politics and what ever personal gripe you have out of it and be professional or be ready! Because I am. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It is completely possible for you to state your case in a civil manner without commenting on other editors the way you're doing. Wikipedia talk pages are not intended to be turned into a battleground. It might be a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you disagree with 's assessment, then try to explain how he is wrong by citing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're expect others to behave professionally, then perhaps its best to try and lead by example and stay cool when editing. Theroadislong is a very experienced editor who is a "real editor", so please try to assume good faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You can flower this up all you want Marchjuly but what Theroadislong wrote above is clearly a nasty antagonistic attack on this article and subject. I did not start this. You chiming in everywhere Theroadislong instigates anything is a clear indicator that you are just going around defending their behavior. Please look at what Theroadislong wrote, it's rude. You also just rudely called me an "angry mastodon", not only was that rude it was also childish. So stop pretending you are taking the high road, you are the problem. You are the antagonizer and the name caller. You should be reprimanded for this behavior. It's petty. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have actually been trying to help improve the article and also trying to answer your questions both on Wikipedia at User talk:DanHamilton1998 and on Commons at c:User talk:DanHamilton1998. The initial comment made by was about his concerns regarding the notability of the article; they were comments on article content not comments about a particular editor unless you are by chance Bill Hillmann himself. however, your responses here, on Theroadislong's user talk and on your user talk were specifically about Theroadislong as an editor mixed in with comments about article content. My response to this can be seen here in it's entirety, but the part about "angry mastodon" was If you have problems with another editor, try to resolve them per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or simply just move on to something else. The choice is yours to make, so hopefully you choose to be a productive editor and help contribute to building the encyclopedia and not be an angry mastodon was an attempt to explain that the "angry mastadon" and "turn Wikipedia into a battleground" approaches are something that Wikipedia has little tolerance for and could lead to you ending up at WP:ANI. You also failed to mention that my post was made in response to this post where you warn me to be careful because you will drag everybody into this and make every-bodies life miserable until the right thing happens. That's not really an attitude conducive to collaborative editing.
 * For reference, I also was the one who removed the AfD comments you copied-and-pasted onto this talk page because that is just something we do not do on Wikipedia for the reasons given in WP:TPO and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. These were talk page posts made by and  on a completely different page, but you made it seem as if they were posted here which is not the case at all. You also did not properly attribute these posts as required, so techincially they are a copyright violation per WP:ATTREQ. I added a link to the entire discussion which is preferable and where anyone interested can see the posts in their proper context. I probably should have done a better job explaining this in my edit sum shown here. Now, if you feel that I should be reprimanded for any of these things, feel free to bring up the matter at WP:ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Another no no, you or someone else deleted the conversation from the last deletion request that I put here. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm dealing with the same people using different long in accounts. Well here it is, the final word on the last attempt at deletion.

"Keep: Loads of significant coverage in very notable reliable mainstream venues all around the U.S. and beyond. Added to his articles, broadcasts, and books, this is a no-brainer. SwisterTwister, please do WP:BEFORE before AfDing an article. Softlavender (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC) The concerns I had began with this AfD, were about the advertising motivations, I had completed WP:BEFORE so WP:AGF applies here; also, because there was enough to suspect the article was made for advertising, that for sure necessitated an AfD. Also, FWIW, my concerns of at least half of the sources simply being republished interviews and then they being falsely listed as "reviews" were concerning, hence my nomination. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC) I do not at all believe you did WP:BEFORE; you are still even now only referring to the citations in the wiki article itself, not on WP:BEFORE research (which can be done now by clicking the links at the top of this page: 20,000 web results including 6,200 WP reference results; 200 news results; two independent Book results; 20 Highbeam results; etc.). There are dozens of cases of significant and varied independent coverage in extremely notable national venues, and there is significant international coverage as well. Your mysterious "concerns about advertising" have no place at AfD; you should know that by now. When you don't do WP:BEFORE, you just waste everyone's time. If you don't know how to do WP:BEFORE, do this: paste the Template:Find sources on the article's talk page and click the links that way. Softlavender (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)" DanHamilton1998 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia notability is established by widespread coverage of the person in reliable sources independent of the subject. The references supporting the statement "According to Hillmann he has run with the bulls in Spain more than 300 times" are as follows…


 * a blog post says "el hombre de los 200 encores" which translates as "The man of the 200 bulls"
 * another blog post  "el récord de correr 101 encierros" which translates as "The record of running 101 encierros"
 * another blog post  says that he "had reached 99 consecutive runnings in recent years a figure that rises to 200 now"
 * Redeye Chicago  says "Bill Hillmann attempted to complete 101 encierros, or bull runs, this summer in Spain"

None of these references support the content? Theroadislong (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you being Ironic, here? Theroadislong? The one is a digital file of the back cover of the biggest newspaper in an entire region of Spain. The other two are news outlets that happen to be websites. And if we are referencing a person by saying "according to Bill Hillmann", why not quote his blog? Outlets quote people's twitter accounts all the time. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No I'm not being ironic? None of the sources supported the statement that " he has run with the bulls in Spain more than 300 times" Please assume good faith the article has been vastly improved today. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , please don't copy posts from other venues without the user's permssion. Please remain WP:CIVIL, as you were instructed to do at the very recent WP:ANI thread: . If you continue on your path of incivility, another ANI thread will be filed about you and you will likely be blocked from editing., if you believe the article is poorly referenced, then please improve the referencing or tag what needs referencing. , please learn to indent your posts with colons in order to properly nest your replies under the post you are replying to. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok my apologies Softlavender. Thank you for addressing their behavior as well. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Deep breaths, everyone, please ...
We have highly experienced editors communicating with a brand-new editor who, having made only 20 edits, had his first article, which was approved at AfC, unceremoniously and unfairly AfDed. If he is upset, he has reason to be. If he doesn't know the score, he has reason not to -- he still is brand new and has only made 70 edits thus far. Please don't go into abstruse detail and quote obscure essays at him. Please don't bait him with taunts and sarcasm. Please don't bite the newbies. Be welcoming. It is up to the highly experienced editors to welcome and improve and help the articles and editors who have no possible way of knowing our routines, guidelines, and standards. Please speak politely, briefly, and clearly, with the aim of article improvement, not with the aim of making a brand-new editor wrong. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Well done, everyone! The article looks great! Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal life
This article lacks all information about Hillmann's life. Are there any sources that give his year of birth, or age at the date of the article, or anything about where he grew up or went to school? All I see is that he lives in Chicago; and the Spanish article that I have left as Further Reading, the only one I see in the sources that is an extended article about Hillmann's whole career, refers to a psychological condition in its title; I'm reluctant to put that information in article, but that source may well have some useable biographical information—however, I can only see the start of it because I'm not about to turn off my ad blocker. Those who can see all of it—is there anything biographical there that can be added? Or does anyone have anything from anywhere else; it's possible I missed something in another cited source. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy to investigate but I can't work out to which reference you are referring? Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This one. There may possibly be info such as his age in a particular year lurking in other sources, but I failed to find any. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He was born in 1981 according to his facebook page but I realise that's not an ideal source. Theroadislong (talk)
 * Translated from that source He was in jail. He is a friend of Irvine Welsh, of Trainspotting. Enid is his Mexican wife and other details about him being bipolar. But no birth date or school details. Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More about the Irvine Welsh connection here Theroadislong (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That source gives his age very approximately, a little about his background, and that he's Buddhist. And you say the other mentions his wife. I don't feel comfortable creating a Personal Life section yet tho. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No neither do I, but the article is greatly improved. Theroadislong (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There was some background info about Hillmann in this. I added it to the article here and hoped my edit sum would be noticed by others because I wasn't sure at the time how accurate and how relevant the information might be. It might be possible to add the education info to a "Background" section and the other info to "Personal life". Also, maybe ask on WT:CHICAGO about Hillmann? If he appears (has appeared) on local TV or in the local papers, someone might be able provide more leads on sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd missed that one. That's doubtless info he supplied himself; I thought the growing up and degrees info was safe to add, so at least there's something now. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation date format
With quite a number of different editors working on the improving the article, there are multiple date formats being used in the various citations. Maybe it's time to establish a consensus on one particular one per MOS:DATEUNIFY. I used the all-numerical format when I add mine per WP:CITEVAR because that seemed to be the original format used by the creator and that one is fine with me. Hillmann is an American so the "Month day year" format also probably is good per MOS:DATEVAR. Unless there's a specific reason for the "Day Month Year" format, I think we should use one of the other two. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * For an American they should normally be in American format, regardless of the format in the original works. Thus, month-day-year. Softlavender (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree, it should probably be month-day-year; I had wondered about that but day-month-year seemed to predominate, so I went with that. I hadn't realized all-numbers was the original format, sorry. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
I'm not sure if there's really enough in the article right now for an infobox, but it might be something worth discussing. Articles are not required to have an infobox and a disinfobox should be avoided whenever possible, but one can be nice touch when it can be properly supported. Would Infobox writer be OK or should it be more general like Infobox person? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If there is one, it should be Template:Infobox person, because he's better known as a bull-running expert than merely as a writer. By the way, that image is going to be automatically deleted soon because it does not have an OTRS copyright release from the photographer, and apparently, given his username, the uploader is not the photographer. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * has said on Commons that a permissions email has been sent to OTRS. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK thanks I added the OTRS-pending template to the file so it won't get deleted before the ticket is processed. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I think his activities are too varied for an infobox to be of much use. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Another Diario de Navarra source
I was able to find Bill Hillmann: "Los extranjeros deberían ir a un curso para correr el encierro" on the Diario de Navarra's website and it certainly looks like significant coverage. Unfortunately, it requires a subscription and it is in Spanish. Perhaps someone at WT:SPAIN might be able to help with both? -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Copylink vio?
Is it possible that the citation to the Gutiérrez article "El hombre de los 200 encierros" (see Bill Hillmann) via thedangeroussummerblog.com is a problem per WP:COPYLINK and WP:EL? The blog is not an official webpage of the Diario de Navarra and the article and photo may have been uploaded to the blog in violation of paper's copyright. It might be better to drop the link altogether and just link the newspaper as a source per WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If an official link can be found at a later date, it can be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't have a problem with it as a linked and viewable citation. It's barely legible even if zoomed in. I added it as an extra confirming citation for the exceptional claim, and also because I was thinking about DYKing this article (giving all 5 of us participants credit) and using the 200+ bull runs in one summer as the main part of the hook. However, if anyone is going to get all hyper-legalistic about it, the title itself gives most of the confirmation, so I guess it could fly that way. One small problem is, there's no date visible on the article (the page is truncated), and the blog post doesn't give the date of the article either -- it only gives the date it was apparently added to the blog. Since Hillmann left Spain on September 20, 2016 (as he mentions elsewhere), it was most certainly published in September 2016, but I'm not sure which exact date, which is why it's nice to have the full confirming visible text as proof of the article's existence and what it says. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is that it's not an issue, then I think the convenience link is fine. I am only bringing it up because I recently saw a citation removed from another article for this reason. I think it would still be better to find a link to the original source if possible and I'll keep looking for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The article is not anywhere on their website and not available anywhere on the web. A convenience link to the image on the blog posting is fair-use because it's for non-profit educational purposes, is too small and blurry to be publishable or reproduceable, and does not deprive them of any income because they can't make any more money out of it anyway -- it hasn't been digitized or posted online and apparently won't be, it's just the back cover of an old newspaper issue, and the only other way for people to view the back cover of that old issue would be to find a copy in a library in Spain -- they aren't going to sell back issues of a non-digitized newspaper. Softlavender (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Convert template

 * Is there a specific policy/guideline reason for not wanting to use a Template:Convert for 3 miles or is this just personal preference? It seems OK to use per MOS:CONVERSIONS, but I'm just curious as to why it's not a good idea here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no reason to use it. These are rounded/approximate numbers, not exact, and should not be to decimal points, and this is not a science or geography article. There is no policy or requirement to use the template, ever. Softlavender (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't claiming that using it was required, just saying that it could be used. Anyway, your point about the article not being a scientific or geography article where precise conversions might matter is a good one. Thank you for clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Currently unsubstantiated material
I've removed this unsubstantiated material from the article, and am placing it below. Please do not re-add any of it unless every single claim or sub-claim that is re-added has a reliable-source citation substantiating it. Thank you. You may edit inside this quote box, if you would like, to mock up some citations before re-adding material to the article. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

NOTE:  is:

"Fightnews" and "Chicago RedEye" connection
I am wondering about the accuracy of the sentence "He was the Chicago correspondent for Fightnews, and is the special boxing contributor for the Chicago Tribune RedEye" in the third paragraph of Bill Hillmann. The sentence is supported by citations to two articles written by Hillmann ( listed as RedEye and Fightnews), but I think there's a bit of synthesis taking place here. There's nothing in these sources, at least nothing I can find, which supports the sentence: the RedEye source says that Hillmann is "a RedEye special contributor" but not "the special boxing contributor", and there's nothing is the Fightnews article about Hillmann being "the Chicago correspondent". Discussing things like "the" versus "a" may seem trivial, but the way the sentence reads seems to imply (again at least to me) that Hillmann was officially on staff for both these publications and not someone who (occasionally) was just a contributor. Maybe this is the case and maybe I'm over thinking this a bit, but I think if the article is going to claim such a thing, then better sources are needed per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:VNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree we need to be accurate. DanHamilton1998 has not yet grasped the nature of accurate substantiation of claims. This creates an enormous amount of cleanup work for other editors. I would recommend either trying to find substantiating confirmation, or re-wording the information in this wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)