User talk:Hillbillyholiday/Archive 5

missed
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Otto Lange) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Otto Lange, Hillbillyholiday!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for creating this article - it's appreciated. It's just been reviewed. Could you please look it over and see if you can help address the improvement tags? Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DYK for Heures de Charles d'Angoulême
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Look!! .... it's a jinge!! -- Starrey Gazey Marty 23 (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Creepy fish-shrimp hybrid. That is a FUN paper. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

True Bluebirds over...

 * I'll never forget the people I met braving those angry skies.
 * I remember well as the shadows fell, the light of hope in their eyes.
 * And tho' I'm far away, I can still hear them say "Thumbs Up!"
 * for when the dawn comes up...

Get yourself down to Derry Street, you ginger oddball, and get yourself a proper job. -- Uncle Arthur 123 (Walmington-on-Sea) 21:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Pasg Hapus

 * You might this genre cloud quite amusing. Seems to be based on Spotify genres. Great to see a little snippet of Norwegian jazz there. And great to see British Dance Band so close to Islamic recitation and Vintage gospel. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!
Excellent exchange of thoughts four years ago, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Citation Needed/BLP Sources Edits
Hi there! I wanted to reach out and check about many of your recent edits. For many you have the Edit Summary reason as needing more reliable sources, many of these I can fix by finding valid sources and was about to do. However it appears that the actual reason you're deleting much of the content is as you state on Talk:Reese Witherspoon, "There is a general consensus over the years not to mention trivial arrests, unless they impact significantly on the subject's career. This should be obvious; Wikipedia is not (meant to be) a tabloid (although in actuality it is very often far worse) nor is it meant to be a repository for every single event in a person's life ... I am glad to see that you accept the need for a reduction of the information contained within in the Personal life section. Such sections should be removed altogether if you ask me." If this is actually the reason for your content deletion could you please put that as the Edit Summary so I know finding valid sources that aren't daily mail and re-adding it is not desired? I think using the proper WP:BLP shorthand would be a great help in this way and make it easier for people to understand reasoning. Several shorthands that I think would work for you to cite depending on the article would be WP:BLPSOURCE if a valid source is actually desired, or things like WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPCRIME. Although it is good to keep in mind WP:PUBLICFIGURE which states, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Sorry if this went on a bit long, I think this will go a long way to helping people understand your edits as well as being able to signal easily if something just needs a better source or if the content does not belong there. Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeanjung212. Sorry if I'm being a tad terse (dental problems) I shall endeavour to leave better edit summaries in future. As an aside, did you know that the Encyclopædia Britannica managed to do without BLPs for nearly 150 years? --Hillbillyholiday talk 16:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Blimey, Billy! If you do manage to get 512 characters into all of your edit summaries I, for one, will be very impressed. I often feel like I want to reach out and check, but I really don't want to catch anything, sorry. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
Hello, I'm FlightTime. I noticed that you recently removed content from Britney Spears without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your mass deletions
Your mass deletions at articles like Megan Fox, Shia LaBeouf, Kanye West and Britney Spears are disruptive. Some of the content should perhaps be cut, but you should give editors a chance to assess these matters, especially when it's WP:GAs or WP:FAs involved, and especially when it's just an issue of trimming things and/or rewording things. Quotes can be summarized, for example. I am well aware that you cut things that you consider trivial or fluff, but Wikipedia editing is not supposed to be based on WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I see that you got into a similar dispute involving SNUGGUMS, FrB.TG, Krimuk2.0 and Mattbuck at the Jennifer Lawrence article. If it wasn't clear from that dispute, you need to take into consideration whether or not some of the things you are removing are things that the subject is known for, or are things that have significantly impacted the subject and/or others.

I would rather discuss what should or should not be deleted rather than edit war. And I would rather not have to escalate your "mass deletion" behavior to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Flyer22 Reborn. Editors do have a chance to assess these matters, and if things are thought worth including I'm happy to listen and quite happy to admit I might be wrong. But I think I can justify every edit made to these biographies. Can you justify your recent additions, which on top of mountains of unimportant, irrelevant garbage, have reintroduced clear BLP violations and highly questionable sources. The trouble is, most decent folk here are too scared of making drastic but necessary cuts, and too many articles are guarded by their creators, who are loathe to see anything go, often in the mistaken belief that because there is a star on the page it must be fine. Some of these bios got their "GA" status nearly a decade ago and haven't been reassesed since. The whole concept of FA/GA is basically meaningless, and it's rather embarrassing having to use the terms in an argument, but if these articles are the best Wikipedia has to offer, or are seen as models for other bios, then we should all be ashamed.
 * Please feel free to take it to whichever of the dramah boards you think necessary. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If you were willing to discuss, you would not be mass deleting non-BLP violating content without first addressing the matter on article talk pages and discussing it. You would not be edit warring all over the place.


 * And what WP:BLP violations are you talking about? We both know that your idea of WP:BLP violations are often very strict, mainly because you don't like certain sources, like People magazine (which is why we had to do that big RfC about People magazine generally being fine to use). Look at what you deleted here. In that edit summary, you stated that there is a WP:BLP violation. If so, then you should delete the WP:BLP violation, not delete chunks and chunks of material because you don't like it. We lose a lot of important material with these huge chunks you make to these articles. Overquoting is easily remedied.


 * I get your point about WP:GAs and WP:FAs. But WP:OWN is clear about treading carefully on WP:FA articles. In a lot of these cases, it doesn't matter that the article reached WP:FA years ago. There is still the fact that a lot of care went into these articles, including a lot of discussion about how they should be formatted.


 * As for WP:ANI, I will take the matter there because I consider your mass deletions disruptive, and I don't think you will be stopping on your own. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A good idea. I doubt I'll be participating. Have you ever heard any Yusef Lateef, he's quite magical. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:ANI notice, per protocol. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, why are you all [except Hillbillyholday, of course] unable to notice that a lighter touch produces a compromise that preserves the articles and lowers the tension. Take his suggestion and sit back in your chair and listen! &#160;Cheers! Gareth&#160;Griffith&#8209;Jones ( The Welsh Buzzard ) 09:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Britney Spears. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi User:FlightTime. So Hillbillyholiday's edits are just vandalism? You've both exceeded WP:3RR at this stage. Wouldn't it be more productive to just wait for engagement in that discussion you have started at the article Talk page, or to await an outcome at your AN/I post, than to slap down a final warning template here? Perhaps there is an inflexible protocol to be followed. But it seems a bit heavy-handed for an editor who has made very valuable contributions over many years. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm late, Take it easy, folks, Hillbillyholiday is a GREAT GREAT contributor, over the years he has been one of the pillars of the encyclopaedia, and his recent contributions are fairly justified, he removed TONS AND TONS of chattery and tangential gossip, we can't add every single affair, crazy reaction, twitter feud to every single article,....blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTADIARY WP:NOTGOSSIP; on the other hand, I understand the point of Flyer22 Reborn (a great administrator), some protocols have to be followed before some mass deletions, but I think in this particular case, Hillbillyholiday's trims, are not vandalism or disruptive editings at all, I agree with him, some FAs and GAs are filled with some verbosity, and perhaps the WP:STATUSQUO is not the best way in this specific edit war. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * FinalPoint1988, I'm not an administrator. And, for reasons I've stated, I'm going to have to disagree with you that Hillbillyholiday's mass deletions are not disruptive. The disruption -- edit warring, fussing, etc. with a number of editors across these articles -- proves otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * x2 Slow down. Where in this warning doe it say "vandalism" ? It says "blanking" which is exactly what Hillbillyholiday was doing. I did not start any discussion on a article talk page about this issue, my comment on Fox was in response to a query from, also please check the timestamps of this warning and any other post you are referring to, this warning was placed before the article talk post or the ANI thread, no apology required for getting this totally wrong. Cheers,  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, FlightTime, I was just about to state that it was me, not you, who started the WP:ANI thread, and that you have not yet weighed in on that thread. But I think it would be beneficial if you did. This mass deletion disruption needs to stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. It's still very unclear to me as to who's posted what and why. Perhaps this is a result of multiple editors all piling on at once. My comment about the appropriateness of the last warning template still stands, however. I'm not sure that posting a comment 8 and a half hours after you posted the template is really rushing in, but never mind. So your template here came without any discussion at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe, it seems some disruptive (at first sight), but he gave very good reasons for his massive removal of content, perhaps some may frown with it, but sometimes "someone has to do the dirty work"; I agree with you Flyer on the use of the talk page, perhaps, removing content massively from FAs is not the best way according to some policies (according to my experience), I made this mistake in the past with some consequences...and although Hillbillyholiday has very valid reasons for his action, the best way for massive removals from FAs and GAs is the Talk Page as the first step.. to avoid being unnecessarily blocked, great contributors like Hillbillyholiday do not deserve to be banned..greets to all of you and take it easy... happy editing! Note: The accuracy and quality of some FAs and GAs have to be checked again..FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * FinalPoint1988, Hillbillyholiday's reasons are not always very good. Hillbillyholiday often removes stuff on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis, which is not how we should edit. See this dispute at Talk:Jennifer Lawrence? I agree with those who challenged Hillbillyholiday. Some stuff that Hillbillyholiday removes is very relevant and should be retained or simply trimmed or reworded, not deleted altogether. Some may not like that Jennifer Lawrence is a sex symbol, but it is a part of her notability and public image. For some removals across these articles, I don't think that Hillbillyholiday is completely in the wrong, but I do think that he or she is often going about them in the wrong way. When multiple editors disagree and are reverting you, for example, you should not keep removing the content unless there is some WP:BLP violation or some other serious issue. Edit warring is disruptive, and edit warring against multiple editors usually results in that lone editor getting blocked; so, if the editor does have a valid case for the deletions, then nothing is resolved except for the disruption. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I sent you a thank you,but it was a mis-click, I ment to thank you for the orignal post not your addon. To answer your added query, no, I posted a level 1 warning earlier above. Please if you have any other issues with me please post them at the ANI discussion, the ec's here are getting out of hand. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No thanks received or expected. I won't comment at the ANI discussion as I'm not involved with those articles, but some of that stuff he's deleted did seem a bit trashy, to me. I just thought you were a bit heavy handed, that's all. Hillbillyholiday himself doesn't seem too concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That supposed lack of concern, as though it's fine and dandy to keep doing this, is one of the problems. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Who's counting the problems?&#160;Cheers! Gareth&#160;Griffith&#8209;Jones ( The Welsh Buzzard ) 07:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to cause drama, don't threaten to block established editors without full view of the facts. Isn't that obvious? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Probable 3RR violation now being discussed at WP:AN3
Please see my recent comment at WP:AN3. In my opinion you could avoid a block for the 3RR violation if you make a concession about your future behavior that ensures the problem won't continue. For example, you could agree to make no more edits at Britney Spears unless they have a prior consensus on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)