User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2010/July

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Louis-Philippe_I,_King_of_the_French
billinghurst, does this help make my explanation clearer? . --Frania W. (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. billinghurst  sDrewth  01:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AN protection
I was following what I believed to be a good and well-established practice, including using indefinite protection, the reasons for which can be seen described at User talk:Shirik/IDA. Usually the protection is lifted shortly after the attack, despite being labeled as indefinite, since it is rare for any of those who vandalize to be waiting for a chance to come back and vandalize again; the short attention span is common to the nature of these websites.

Even I believe though that protection is a very last resort. Much more ideal would be for us to be able to use the edit filter to stop only edits that contain the particular patterns that we are expecting to see, while allowing all other editors, including IP's. But because of a limitation in the edit filter software, it is impossible to oversight log entries, and the use of the edit filter to stop edits that give out personally identifying information of other editors is strongly discouraged.

If you think I should not use this method at all, please let me know; I am not irrevocably attached to it. However, I suspect that another admin will quickly protect the page if I don't.  —  Soap  —  10:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very blunt tool, with little information for other admins to understand. Maybe a little better communication, would prevent the questions. billinghurst  sDrewth  10:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think it would be a good idea if I'd put the summary "Inbound distributed attacks" in the protection log and then put a message on my talk page the way Shirik does? I know that wouldnt help the IP's who can't edit, but like I said, I only used the page protection as a last resort because I wasn't able to revert the edits as fast as they came in (I was not able to revert them at all, actually, because of edit conflicts).  —  Soap  —  22:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think something like that would be both informative and helpful, maybe even wikilink to the summary. Thanks. billinghurst  sDrewth  01:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Apocalypse Rising
Hi, Billinghurst. Thanks for closing the move request on Talk:Apocalypse Rising (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). Is there a reason you didn't move the talk page? Talk:Apocalypse Rising is pretty useless right now and could easily be deleted to make way for the article's former talk page. Powers T 17:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders by date
I'm not sure I agree with your choice to relist the Requested Move discussion at the above title, since you had participated in the discussion and it looks like you've chosen to extend the discussion another seven days because you want people to support your suggested title instead of the one that already had support from three others. You did make your suggestion six days ago, after all, so it's not like there hasn't been time for people to see it. Propaniac (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite entitled to have an opinion, however, you are not entitled to make presumptions and assign motives to me on that evidence base. What I did was aligned to the guidance of how to manage requested move discussions, and does no harm in a non-urgent discussion. billinghurst  sDrewth  05:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yo, read it again. What I said was what it looks like. A user is barred from closing an RM discussion in which they have participated, not because it is impossible for such a user to reach a fair conclusion about the consensus of such a discussion, but because it can always appear to others that his view of the discussion is compromised by his own opinion. My feeling is that the same reasons should bar, or at least discourage, a user who has participated in the discussion from relisting it. I cannot know why you relisted it, but it looks like you did it because you didn't like the consensus, and if it had been an uninvolved admin who chose to relist it, that appearance of bias would obviously be absent.
 * As I'm sure we're both aware, the RM guidelines don't say that participating users can't relist discussions, although they do say the decision to re-list is "up to the closer," which seems to me to imply that the person who chooses to re-list should be eligible to close. But I am not accusing you of violating any rule, guideline or policy; my aim was to point out that your action, in my view, violates the spirit of the guideline and creates the same negative consequences that the guideline is intended to prevent. I doubt there's reason for me to discuss it any further unless you'd like me to further clarify my meaning. Propaniac (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My error was not relisting on the day of my comment, as the support level was on the low end compared to the commentary made. On the day that I reviewed it for closing, I noticed and commented on particular flaws in the grammatical logic, rather than on the substance of a move, which I would regard on the lower end of commentary. My subsequent relisting had been a correction to that when I noticed my previous oversight.
 * You will find that following my making substantive comments I don't close it, which if you reviewed my other moves would be evident. To say that an admin doesn't and cannot have an opinion is misleading, as one cannot help but have an opinion, especially if one does numbers of moves, and has an awareness of the process. It is whether their opinion blinds them to the argument; their opinion on whether a consensus has been formed, and their opinion on whether the consensus follows the naming guidelines, as there can be a consensus that doesn't align. billinghurst  sDrewth  15:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:David McAllister
Maybe these pages could be moved now? The proposal has been listed since 1 July. Josh Gorand (talk) 09:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem with move
Hello. When you moved David McAllister (politician) it looks like you left the talk page behind, so that now David McAllister (politician) redirects to David McAllister but Talk:David McAllister (politician) is orphaned and Talk:David McAllister redirects to the dab's talk page. (There was similar but less confusing single-move situation with Marvin's Marvelous Mechanical Museum which I've since corrected.) Station1 (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. billinghurst  sDrewth  00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Signature
I am a new editor and I came across your comment here:

You said "as per the name of tab". What do you mean?Hyperpiper (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of tabs at the top of each page. For article pages it says | Article | Talk | ...| History.  Here for user pages it says | User | Talk | ...

Also, What is sDrewth?Hyperpiper (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am; and it is my link to my talk page, and it is my nickname in a few places, so it works nicely as a place to look to talk to me. Its origin is that it is a created word, and a word play. billinghurst  sDrewth  11:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ivory Coast vs. Cote d'Ivoire
I wonder if you could help me with some advise on how to precede on the matter of Ivory Coast vs. Cote d'Ivoire. I do not want to be disruptive by keep beating a dead horse. But at the same time, I think that this case has been handle wrong. The opposition against the move has thus far succeeded in arguing that in the case of usage being split between more than one common name, an article should stay in its last stable location. But WP:COMMONNAME actually says that in such a case, that the name should be decided through reaching a consensus between editors on which is the best name. And I think that such a consensus has already been reached in the requested move discussion. I don't know if it would be prudent in this situation to post a new requested move discussion to try and reach a such a consensus again, now that it has been established that there are two common names for the country.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point in time, I would be seen as more a competitor than an independent arbiter as the debate has made me form an opinion, and at some point soon, I will express mine. With regard to consensus, in my opinion it is more than a majority either way, it is about a plan on how to progress forward that both sides can nod and say yes, or the bulk of the disagreement has been managed.  If you want to look at some levels of consensus of what a vote constitutes, to be an administrator or a steward there is the expectation that you get 80% in favour, there is no simple majority.  So to the current discussion, it needs to be sorted out what is agreed, and what is not.  From what is not, what can be sorted out, and what cannot, and that is where the work is to be done.  To my statement there, the discussion was turning to an argument that it was becoming difficult to read, and seemed to be stopping the seeking of opinion. billinghurst  sDrewth  04:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
G'day, Billinghurst!. I want to thank you for taking the time to read carefully through this move request and relisting it rather than just tallying !votes. And I'm not just saying that because I value my dary products, either! Good on you, mate! – OhioStandard  (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then again I could have just been plain chicken. It is actually best to see if a consensus can be reached rather than imposed. It would be worthwhile listing  upon what you agree (and set that aside), and listing what you don't, then seeing if you can work on that gap. billinghurst  sDrewth  13:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good advice, and likewise for your counsel above, re settling the name for an article about a certain country in Africa. What about taking a tip from the artist formerly known as Prince, in that case? ... But chicken? You? Nawrh! Blessed are the peacemakers, I say. Thanks again. Kiss a Sheila for me. Cheers, mate! ( excuse the over-the-top colloquialisms. we never get to say anything fun in Ohio. ) –  OhioStandard  (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Userbox moves
Regarding, please note that your moves-without-redirect/deletions broke existing transclusions and incoming links. Be sure to leave a redirect behind unless there is a good reason not to, and also be sure that you don't delete significant history instead of merging history and leaving redirects to fix a cut-and-paste move. (I've fixed these ones) Thanks! – xeno talk 13:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre
Hi Billinghurst. There seems no reason to relist the Requested Move at Steamtown Heritage Rail Centre. If you check the discussion, consensus was reached, and the proposer rescinded the move request. Can you have another look? This seems suitable for a Speedy Close. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)