User talk:Billebrooks

Red State Update
No need for DRV; was a bad call on my part. I've undeleted it. android 79  15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Red State Update
Hi. I've recreated Red State Update and we're not going to allow it to get deleted this time. Please add it to your watchlist and help flesh the article out. These guys have produced so much material that there is fodder for an extensive, fascinating article out there. Thanks! --AStanhope (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Law of Nines


The article The Law of Nines has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable per WP:BK

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andre Riddick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Davis (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) 11:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Byrne (musician)
I agree that the SSDI gives May 13, 1918 as his birth date, but that conflicts with literally every other online source that I have seen, which state October 10. What makes you so convinced that the SSDI is accurate, and that every other source is wrong? Technically, the article should give (with sources) both dates, unless you can convince me otherwise. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello. I am a genealogist.  The SSDI is a primary source.  Everything you are quoting is a secondary source.  Also check imdb.  Although it is a secondary source, it gives the date May 13, 1918.  I have a pending change request on findagrave.  I came across this because I was doing cousin matches on Ancestry using FamilySearch for sources.  I have DNA evidence that I match his daughters, with common ancestor William LeHew/LeHue born about 1745.  So Bobby Byrne is a fourth cousin twice removed to me.  I got the idea that the Robert Byrne in my tree might be the chess player, but he turned out to be the trombonist.  I have identified two of his daughters as Shellye Mary and Barbara.  Barbara appears to be the daughter that is administering the tests, and Shellye is on FamilySearch.  Shellye has a deceased husband named Richard Bruce Hayden, 1940-2005.  There is a Jeffery Hayden on Ancestry whom I believe is their son.  Both Jeffery on Ancestry and Shellye on FamilySearch give the date May 13, 1918.  I have more possible facts, but I am not as confident.  A computer obituary on FamilySearch gives his middle name as Passings, but that might be an error.  Shellye gives his birth location as Pleasant Corners, Franklin, Ohio, United States, but I have no other source for that.Billebrooks (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the policy in articles here is that what has been published in secondary sources essentially trumps (sorry!) material published in primary sources - WP:PSTS - or, indeed original research. In this case, however, I hardly think it's worth making an issue of it and, anyway, I've now found a published source (here) for the May date and have added it to the article.   Thanks for your clarification and good luck with your research (I dabble in my own genealogy a little!).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe you are making some errors here. First, I am not trying to establish notability; that's already been done.  Second, I've proven that the secondary source is in error.  Indeed I've tried to track down the primary source for the date Oct 10 and I've utterly failed to do so.  Secondary sources are supposed to be interpreting primary sources in a reasonable manner.  I question whether that has happened in this case.  However, I am glad to see that you have realized that there is more to back up the May 13 date than you originally realized.Billebrooks (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No-one is questioning his notability. My point is that, when you say "I've proven that the secondary source is in error", that is original research which is not normally allowed on this site.  But, I'm not going to pursue this any further, other than perhaps leave a note on the article talk page to guide future editors.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think you are making a serious error if you think dates can be correctly determined on wikipedia while ignoring 100% of unpublished genealogy. A lot of published genealogy is woefully out of date these days.Billebrooks (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No-one is claiming that dates on Wikipedia are necessarily "correct". Rather, they should reflect published sources rather than unpublished research.  That is policy.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Sources on wikipedia are supposed to be reliable. You are not going to get that when you have a bunch of secondary sources mirroring each other with no primary sources to back them up.  I've still yet to discover what the true origin of the old date is.  Thin air, maybe?  However, by giving a primary source, I can you an idea of where the new date came from.  Have you found any info in your new secondary source, a footnote perhaps, that gives a primary source that the secondary source is based on?  That sort of thing is what drives the policy that you are quoting.  Absent a footnote or something similar, a primary source is needed at least as a supplement.  Furthermore, if you have contradictory secondary sources, as we do in this case, how are we to distinguish which to trust without resorting to primary sources?Billebrooks (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The source I'm now using gives the date you found. The question is where the October date came from.   But, as the article now gives the May date, the origin of the October date is a matter for other editors to consider if they wish.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)