User talk:Billy Hathorn/Archive 19

DYK discussion
You've been mentioned a few times at Wikipedia talk:Did you know - you may wish to comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chuck Kleckley
Another nomination promoted by the DYK project. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

About your editing
Please familiarize yourself with the following pages:
 * WP:V
 * WP:RS
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:PARAPHRASE
 * Let's get serious about plagiarism

Every article of yours I have looked at is built on non-reliable sources and contains close paraphrasing, plagiarism, BLP violations, and non-reliable sources. If these issues continue, and if DYK chooses to continue to feature these policy breaches on the mainpage, I will ask independent admins to look into your editing. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey Billy, content contribution is like white water rafting a bit -  too close to sources and we veer close to copyvio, too far and it's into OR or synthesis. I am thinking we just need to steer a bit further from wording at sources. I have done a bit here and there. If you have any questions on how something can be worded differently, just ask and I will try to come up with something. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas G. Carmody
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Plagiarism documented in the discussion at WT:DYK. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Did you know
Hi Billy. I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion regarding some of your editing at the DYK talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Calmhead mate with the DYKs. Its not a competition!! You've suddenly even passed Geschichte!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the problem here? I wrote some articles on state legislators, all properly sourced and documented. I can't imagine someone spending his timne challenging these little artcles? No one except myself has ever found errors in any of my articles. None of the subjects to my knowledge has complained. It's not plagirism to rewrite someone else's words and given that person as the source. I won't be available for another ten days on Wikipedia. Billy Hathorn (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Bill Noël
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bill Noël, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fno26; see talk, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Bill Noël and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Bill Noël, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Bill Noël with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Bill Noël. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Bill Noël saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a copyright violation. Material is paraphrased and properly sourced and documented from several sources. Billy Hathorn (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Herman Farr for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Herman Farr is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Herman Farr until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Virginia Martinez (Louisiana politician) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Virginia Martinez (Louisiana politician) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Virginia Martinez (Louisiana politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

See also Articles for deletion/Bob Bruce (Texas journalist) Karanacs (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Lundy's Lane Museum sign IMG 1489.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lundy's Lane Museum sign IMG 1489.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never understood how a sign identifying a public building could be a copyright violation? Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dublin Dr Pepper IMG 0959.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:Dublin Dr Pepper IMG 0959.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

CCI Notice
Hello, Billy Hathorn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. cmadler (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have committed no copyright violations; this is a red herring. The most recent violation alleged, Bill Noel, failed to be proved. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but I disagree. At least with images, you have committed plenty of copyright violations. On the subject of images, let me be frank:
 * You cannot take photographs of other people's work and then upload those photographs as "own work". It's not just disingenuous, it's a violation of copyright, and Wikipedia cannot tolerate such behavior. You need to describe, in detail, where the image was taken, who created the original work, and what copyright status the original work has. If you don't know the answer to any of those three questions, you shouldn't upload the image. If you do know the answer to each of those three questions, it needs to go into a Template:Information template. If the copyright status of the origional work is more restrictive than you're release (i.e. if it's still copyrighted) then your photo has to be treated as fair use rather than free use, regardless of anything else. It dosen't matter if you took the photo, your act of taking the photo does not erase the copyright that was already there. I strongly recommend that you cease uploading photographs of other photographs/books/museum displays. The rest of your images are fine, you're only getting into trouble (in images) with this one subset of works.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Those disputed images you mention (most three years ago) should in many cases fall under "fair use." If not, what exactly is "fair use"? Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Phil Preis
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Phil Preis, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=13822, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Phil Preis and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Phil Preis, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Phil Preis with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Phil Preis. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Phil Preis saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I now see that this copyvio dates to January 2011, and predates the current discussion; nonetheless, other issues are occurring in your editing, and I agree with HJMitchell's removal of your autopatrolled status, as you are still creating articles that aren't compliant with policy; in particular, you are still padding articles with irrelevant info, using non-reliable sources, paraphrasing too closely, and in one case I found, misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) a source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi, given that there have been some problems recently—such as with images, the CCI, and WT:DYK—I've removed your autopatrolled privileges, because it seems that more scrutiny is necessary. Please don't take this as personal criticism—we all make mistakes. It just means that some of your work could benefit from a closer look by others, especially if it's to be shown on the Main Page. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Dublin Dr Pepper IMG 0959.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dublin Dr Pepper IMG 0959.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 13:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Before you submit any more to the suggestions page, you might like to look at this discussion. Yomangani talk 10:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Over the past few months, DYK has been harshly criticized for copyvio/close paraphrasing because of articles you created and submitted. DYK is a program with finite resources of editor/reviewer time. Too much of that time has recently been spent on your problematic articles. Rather than continuing to create more new articles and nominate them for DYK, I suggest you review Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive714 and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know, and then cooperate in the Contributor copyright investigation, where yet another group of Wikipedias is trying to sort out problems with your past contributions.   Sharktopus  talk  11:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to ban Billy Hathorn from DYK
I would encourage you to read and take part in the discussion underway at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know.  Sharktopus  talk 16:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Per that discussion, you are banned from DYK until there is sufficient evidence, both through your own discussion and contributions, that these issues will not happen again. See here. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaving a note here to let you know that I moved your response at WT:DYK to the bottom of that section, and letting you know that the ANI discussion got unarchived. It would be best if you responded there, as that has the full list of concerns. Please see WP:ANI, as failing to respond there won't look good. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions, but I don't know how to respond to such a long list of ad hominem attacks. I don't see responses making any difference in the thinking of the attackers. I don't even recognize other Wikipedia writers by screen name, but dozens have come out attacking me and apparently virtually none in defense. It reminds me of the old Lincoln line that if he answered all his critics, his office would be closed for all other business. No article (and there must be 4,000, and I have no exact count of how many I have created) has even been cited for an error of fact. I haven't copied anyone's work and passed it off as my own. I can fill articles with my own writing. Photos that say "own work" were listed that way automatically by the Wikipedia photo form, and I forgot to delete "own work" in a few dozen of those. Can you put this information in the right section? Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've copied what you said here (an expanded version of what you wrote above) to the ANI thread. It really would be better, though, if you responded there yourself. Post there asking for help if you need it, or put a help me notice on this page. Though many people will think that an editor who has been around for as long as you have should know how to post to ANI, I do have some sympathy if you've never posted there before. As for the general situation, my advice would be for you to stop all new article content creation, to pick a single article where you wish to contest the claims about how you edited that article, and then discuss those concerns on the article talk page with the editor who raised the concerns. Then move on to the next one, and so on. It will take a while, but that seems to be the only way to do this. After about 4-5 such discussions, either you will demonstrate that you are correct, or you will find that you are incorrect and have misunderstood things. Plain assertions of being correct or incorrect won't do, though. Discussion of specific examples is what is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thus far, two articles cdited for falsely alleged copyright violation, Phil Preis and Bill Noel, have been restored, with one paragraph deleted from Preis. Do you know if any others are under review? Billy Hathorn (talk)e
 * There's a massive review list at Contributor copyright investigations/20110727, but very little review seems to have been done thus far. A red X means no copvio was found, a green check means there were problems found. --Orlady (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC) PS - Also see subpages of that page. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion locations
I've posted to the ANI thread suggesting four locations for discussion: I will ask the editors who raised concerns at the latter three article to post their concerns to the talk page of the article, as User:Moonriddengirl did at Talk:Bill Noël. What you need to do is respond at those talk pages to show that you either understand what the problems are, and what you need to avoid doing in future, or to contest the concerns raised. I would strongly suggest that you discuss things on talk pages before re-adding material to articles (you appear to be readding material at Phil Preis). Centralised discussion should probably take place at Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727, which would be the best place for you to post if you wish to contest the overall thrust of the allegations, though the fact that the CCI was opened in the first place means that at least some of the concerns were valid (and from looking at Talk:Bill Noël, I tend to agree with those concerns). Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) Talk:Bill Noël (this has extensive details of the concerns)
 * (2) Talk:Phil Preis
 * (3) Talk:Walter L. Buenger
 * (4) Talk:George Caldwell (Louisiana)

Nomination of J. T. Alley for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J. T. Alley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/J. T. Alley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * Thanks, I couldn't make much out of that. Do you know if I am still banned from DYK? Nothing was ever found in the review. And the material was removed from my Talk Page. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Don Allison


A tag has been placed on Don Allison requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 23:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Herschel Burke Gilbert
Hi. So you know, I removed most of the text from this page as it was a copyright violation of this article, which you cited as a source. Please see WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE. Cheers,  Nik the  stoned  15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Hughes
When are you going to stop the close paraphrasing? Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you've failed to reply, I'll just inform you that I'll begin an ANI if I find any more close paraphrasing or uncited quotations from sources. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons, sourcing requirements
Hi, Billy.

Content sourced to this opinion piece from a community member has been removed from Bryan Hughes (Texas politician) for WP:BLP concerns. While you may use material from blogs as sources of information about living people, you can only do this in certain circumstances; comments left by "a businessman" do not accord with the policy set out at WP:BLPSPS. If you think that in spite of the fact that this material does not seem to have been written by a professional writer it is still acceptable, you should ask for feedback at WP:BLPN. Alternatively, you are welcome to find another source that discusses the events that does comply with policy. What you cannot do is use that source in the article again, unless consensus to do so is clearly established first. With biographies of living persons, the burden is on the contributor adding the content.

Please be sure you are familiar with the sourcing requirements regarding biographies of living persons. These are taken seriously on Wikipedia. Blogs are seldom acceptable sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The source of the last paragraph is a TV station. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by "the last paragraph." I am speaking of information you added from, which is "The Inside Scoop Blog" and which was written by "John Alaniz / Businessman / Temple, Texas". This is the unusable source of which I speak. --User:Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The last paragraph of the article on Rep. Phillips' denial is from a TV station. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean the one that you have since added. I haven't looked at it, but I would imagine it would be perfectly fine. Television stations are generally considered reliable. Thanks for finding a different source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had an opportunity to take a look, I see that it has been removed again. Unfortunately, while the source itself is fine, it is still a violation of the biographies of living persons policy because the source does not substantiate the content you added to the article. The TV station source you used does not mention Hughes at all. You can't afford to be careless with this. Please, review WP:BLP and ensure that your edits are compliant. Content you add about living people must be substantiated by reliable sources. This is a firm policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another source on Rep. Hughes being sworn under oath before the Ethics Committee, Nov. 2010: http://therightsideofaustin.wordpress.com/tag/bryan-hughes/ Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding sources now is not the point, either. The point (at least insofar as this article is concerned) is that you have repeatedly added information into this article in a manner inconsistent with BLP. We are required to do the necessary research prior to adding material on living people. We can't in the meantime use sources that do not meet sourcing requirements or substantiate the material we add. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011: Block
You have been blocked from editing indefinitely for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC) , Couldn't find exactly where to post this.
 * The above talkpage entries and the archives (along with threads at ANI and repeated attempts to reach out to you) are enough. What we have here is a combination of copyright violations and violations of the BLP policy - not as one-offs, but as a continuing state of affairs. This is coupled with a refusal to directly address the issues; I'm not sure if you're being stubborn or honestly don't understand what you're doing wrong, but either way, this ends here. We cannot afford to have you editing until you understand how to edit appropriately. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I've written nearly six thousand articles, and I don't know of any errors reported on any of them. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Billy, can you read the rest of your talkpage? You don't see any issues reported with your articles? Ironholds (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, the "issues" claimed have been unproved. All the articles are accurate. I don't put false info in articles. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Billy, I was just dropping by to point out to you that you have once again violated the biographies of living persons policy at Bryan Hughes (Texas politician). If a source you use is unreliable, you can't keep putting the information back, pretending that you are using different sources. The second source you put into the article (as mentioned in the preceding section) did not support your material; your new sources do not substantiate all of your material. Neither of these sources say a thing about Hughes being under oath by his own request or otherwise. If you are unblocked, please make sure you understand the sourcing requirements of WP:BLP. If you cannot cite a reliable source, you cannot put it in the article, not even if you know that an unreliable source has said so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 15.^ "Texas House committee won't act on Rep. Phillips' alleged threats, November 23, 2010". KXII-TV.com. http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/Texas_House_committee_wont_act_on_Rep_Phillips_alleged_threats__110251099.html. Retrieved September 27, 2011.
 * 16.^ "Patrick Brendel, "Texas House Ethics Panel Takes No Action on Alleged Redistricting Threats by Vice-Chair Phillips," November 23, 2010". americanindependent.com. http://www.americanindependent.com/158065/texas-house-ethics-panel-takes-no-action-on-alleged-redistricting-threats-by-vice-chair-phillips. Retrieved September 28, 2011.
 * Here are the two sources; both reliable. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point. Please identify where either of those sources indicates that Hughes was under oath. I am not able to find that in those sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Chipping in as an uninvolved admin: false information is not the same thing as unverifiable information. Something can be completely true but, if it cannot be reliably sourced, it can't be in a Wikipedia article, and especially not in a BLP. Remember: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (emphasis in original). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I attempted to warn you away from the close paraphrasing as well; as you will doubtless remember, excessive similarity between the contents of articles that you've written and the sources that you've used has repeatedly been a problem. Combined with the BLP issues, we have no solid choice except for the block.  Please don't think that I'm trying to get rid of you; if that were the case, I wouldn't have repeatedly worked on the Hughes article, since biographies of Texas politicians are just almost completely outside my field of interest.  Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Billy Hathorn. Here's some unsolicited opinions and advice from me, because I'm sorry to see you blocked. I'm sorry because I appreciate your work and desire to improve Wikimedia, but I fully understand WHY you were blocked, and have to say it is appropriate. I hope to see you unblocked and working on improving Wikipedia/Wikimedia again. I hope you understand why copyright violations will get you blocked. (Of course people can disagree with what copyright laws should be or think that some aspects of current law are objectionable, but it is Wikimedia policy to work within the laws as they are, not how we wish they should be.) The situation reminds me of problems you've had on Commons -- uploading photos of other people's photos as your "own work" despite being alerted that this was inappropriate, and then you continued to do so despite repeated warnings. I don't pretend to know what you were thinking, but it has sometimes looked similar to what someone would do if they were trying to see how much plagiarism they could get away with. I think a good experienced contributor shouldn't have to be regularly policed by other editors; they should know how to police themself. In your case if you wish to return to contributing here, I'd suggest the folowing actions: 1) Understand why you were blocked, if you don't already. If needed, use your time off editing to read Wikipedia's policies, and if there's something important you can't find an answer to, ask.  2)When you understand why you were blocked, SAY you understand here on your talk page. 3) When you can say so sincerely, state here on your talk page how you intend to work in the future according to Wikipedia policies. Your request to be unblocked above IMO was declined appropriately because it did not express any understanding of the problem nor any intent on your part to work not to repeat the same mistakes in the future.  I hope at least some of this might be helpful to you.  Best wishes, Infrogmation (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I am working under Wikipedia policies; there is no plagiariam; all material is sourced to my knowledge. Plagiarism is passing off the work of others as one's own without attribution. Everything on Wikipedia is parapharased to some extent. Some of this questioned material is not even under copyright any way. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Historian John Loos of LSU in Baton Rouge has died, former president of the Louisiana Historical Association. Could someone do an article on him. Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [copyvio removed by MER-C 08:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)]
 * Billy, our copyright policy applies to every page on Wikipedia. Please don't start pasting or closely paraphrasing content here. You need this space open to negotiate your unblock. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Billy, I'd like to chime in with my comments on your work and my perceptions on why you have come into conflict with Wikipedia policies. I have read plenty of your articles (a number of which I've reviewed for DYK) and I admire your productivity and your ability, but I have come to think of your work as "indiscriminate." That is, in your apparent eagerness to add content about the people and local history topics that interest you, you do not seem to discriminate between that which is appropriate for an encyclopedia and that which doesn't belong. Types of content that doesn't belong that I've seen at various times in your work include content based on unreliable sources (for example, anonymous personal web pages), nonencyclopedic trivia (example, details of the personal lives of the nonnotable family members of the topic of a biographical article, such as the content I removed in this edit from last November), and copyvios (including both close paraphrasing and images that aren't free and don't qualify for fair use). I am reminded of the New York Times slogan "all the news that's fit to print" and the oft-used parody of it, "all the news that fits, we print." If you would demonstrate a commitment to determining whether your content is "fit to print" (or, at least, fit for Wikipedia, in view of WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:BLP, etc.) rather than whether it merely "fits," I believe that your work would be welcome once again. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what all the fuss is about as no one has found any errors in the articles. I have in the past found some errors and corrected them immediately. Thanks for your remarks. One of the things I most regret is that I can't update articles I have done when the subjects die. There's usually one or two deaths per week of the people of which I have written, and each requires an hour or more of work.


 * Another thing that makes no sense to me is the rejection of Internet Movie Data Base. I haven 't found errors on the list of films and television programs. The reader comments are in a separate section and not part of the listing of films and episodes of TV programs. Thanks again for your interest. Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

With IMDB it is complicated to determine what is and isn't reliable, which helps explain why the site has been discussed repeatedly on the reliable sources noticeboard, Suffice it to say that "reader comments" and reviews are not the only user-contributed content on IMDB; a lot of other content comes from users. Fortunately, IMDB now seems identifying email addresses of the authors of at least some reader-contributed content (for example, this plot summary of an obscure short movie from 1955). That may make it easier to distinguish the reader-contributed content (not a reliable source) from the professionally written editorial content (generally regarded as reliable), but it does not make the site's content reliable. When someone questions the reliability of a source I have cited, usually my first step is to search the history of the reliable sources noticeboard to find past discussions of that source -- if the source has been discussed previously, I may discover that there is community consensus that the source is OK or I may get insight into the reasons why the source is deemed unreliable. --Orlady (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue with sources that publish content submitted by users (such as some areas on IMDB) and personal websites (such as this one that you relied heavily upon in an article that I have fretted over) is that they are not reliable sources, meaning that they do not impart verifiability. The information on these sites may be error-free, but that's not the same thing as verifiability, and Wikipedia policy requires that content be verifiable.

I imagine that several of us are looking forward to seeing you make an unblock request that will be deemed acceptable. --Orlady (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Possible error in Claire Chennault:His children from his first marriage were John Stephen Chennault (1913–1977), Max Thompson Chennault (1914–2001), Charles Lee Chennault (1918–1967), Peggy Sue Chennault Lee (born 1919), Claire Patterson Chennault Keyes (killed flying P-51D 8/5/45 with 361 Fighter Group, 8th Air Force), ...


 * However, the Baton Rouge Morning Advocate has an obit today saying that Claire Patterson Chennault (no Keyes) died this week at age 90 and was the next to the last of the Chennault children by the first marriage. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That does seem to be an error. The original source of the error was the use of an unreliable source for the Claire Chennault article, namely familytreemaker.genealogy.com. The familytreemaker page that you cited for the list of the general's children also has corrected the error, but that still does not make it a reliable source. --Orlady (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I remember putting in David Chennault as a child but not the others. Apparently, there is no Claire Patterson Chennault Keyes. (Keyes was this Chennault's first wife.) The person shot down in 1945 does not compute with the Claire Patterson Chennault (1920-2011), son of General Claire Chennault. This is on various media sources today. Billy Hathorn (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article history indicates that you added all of the information about children in June 2010, sourced almost entirely to a familytreemaker page. Your original entry said "Claire Patterson Chennault Keyes (personal information unknown; deceased at time of mother's death in 1977)". The killed in action part was added anonymously in September 2010. It is still worthwhile to note that the misinformation results from the addition of a large chunk of content from an unreliable source; many Wikipedians would say that the encyclopedia would have been better off without any detailed information about the children than with the erroneous and unreliable details you added. --Orlady (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Orlady, can you add to Claire Chennault that the son, Claire Patterson Chennault, served with distinction in the Army Air Corps, subsequently the Air Force, from 1943 to 1966, having attained the rank of lieutenant colonel?

Can you also add to Walter O. Bigby in first paragraph under "Legislative service" the following: Glenn E. Clark (1924-2011), a Kentucky native, three-time Bronze Star recipient in World War II, career non-commissioned officer in the United States Air Force, and small businessman in Bossier City. Thanks, Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent Commons photos
I see that you've uploaded some photos to Commons since you were blocked here. If you upload a photo to Commons that you'd like to see used in an article here, just leave me a note at my Commons talk page; I'll of course not promise to add something that I believe doesn't belong, but I'll be happy to help unless I have a good reason to object. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for uploading these:

Under Blue Ridge Mountains (1): Under Lynchburg, Virginia (3): Under Carter Glass (1): Under Liberty University (3): Under Bob Evans Restaurants (1): Under Richmond, Virginia (4):



Under Richmond, Virginia (not the church itself; there is already a scene in winter at the article on the church):

Under George Wythe (1): Under Stonewall Jackson (1): Under Monument Avenue (1): Under Jefferson Davis (1):

Under Thomas Jefferson (1) or Richmond, Virginia:

Under Ashlawn-Highland (1): Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous IP edits
I notice that you (at least I'm rather sure it's you) have made some edits recently as an anonymous IP user. Please be aware that this is frowned on, per WP:EVASION and WP:Sock puppetry. If you wish to return to good standing in the community, things will go much better if you request a block review on this page -- in which you should provide indications that you understand the issues and are sincerely interested in trying to "follow the rules" in your edits.

I also notice that the IP has picked up a couple of user-talk page warnings for unsourced or poorly sourced additions to articles. I hope that the fact that when you edited as an apparent newbie you picked up those templated warnings helps you realize that you really and truly had fallen into some bad editing habits of a sort that aren't tolerated in newbies...

Knowing of your dedication, I'm sure it's been difficult to stay away. If you wish to return, please do it in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- that is, request an unblock. Please don't make the situation worse for yourself by evading the block. --Orlady (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed that an anonymous user (under IP address 68.94.172.175) has been editing pages which I highly suspect is Billy Hathorn (see WP:EVASION and WP:Sock puppetry). Billy Hathorn, do you know anything about this? Cheezwzl (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn. Thank you. Cheezwzl (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Palomino statue at Laredo Community College Foirt McIntosh Park IMG 1796.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palomino statue at Laredo Community College Foirt McIntosh Park IMG 1796.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Oscar M. Laurel bust IMG 1764.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Oscar M. Laurel bust IMG 1764.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Freer, TX, welcome sign IMG 0965.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Freer, TX, welcome sign IMG 0965.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Rattlesnake monument in Freer, Texas IMG 0964.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rattlesnake monument in Freer, Texas IMG 0964.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Jesus statue in Cedarvale Bay City Cemetery IMG 1044.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jesus statue in Cedarvale Bay City Cemetery IMG 1044.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Veterans Monument at Wharton Courthouse IMG 1028.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Veterans Monument at Wharton Courthouse IMG 1028.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mural in Wharton, TX IMG 1059.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mural in Wharton, TX IMG 1059.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mural in Oberlin, LA IMG 1078.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mural in Oberlin, LA IMG 1078.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Palomino mascot at Laredo Community College IMG 0958.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Palomino mascot at Laredo Community College IMG 0958.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Marjorie Lyons photo IMG 1377.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Marjorie Lyons photo IMG 1377.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Statue on Red River Parkway IMG 1553.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Statue on Red River Parkway IMG 1553.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Old Shed Road mural IMG 1549.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Old Shed Road mural IMG 1549.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Kershaw for Lt. Gov. sign IMG 1156.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kershaw for Lt. Gov. sign IMG 1156.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Veterans Memorial in El Campo, TX IMG 1024.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Veterans Memorial in El Campo, TX IMG 1024.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Confederate Momument, Victoria, TX IMG 1006.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Confederate Momument, Victoria, TX IMG 1006.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Western exhibit at Laredo International Airport IMG 2016.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Western exhibit at Laredo International Airport IMG 2016.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Buddy Holly statue in Lubbock, TX IMG 0085.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Buddy Holly statue in Lubbock, TX IMG 0085.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Statue of Confederate soldier in Minden, LA IMG 0631.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Statue of Confederate soldier in Minden, LA IMG 0631.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Patriotic mural in Homer, LA IMG 0859.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Patriotic mural in Homer, LA IMG 0859.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Horse and rider statue in Logansport, LA IMG 0941.JPG
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Horse and rider statue in Logansport, LA IMG 0941.JPG, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)