User talk:Mo Billings

Welcome Mo Billings!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,246,785 registered editors!

Hello, Mo Billings. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful:

The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia

A Primer for Newcomers

Introduction to Wikipedia

Wikipedia Training Modules

Simplified Manual of Style

Creating a new article via the Article Wizard

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:

1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly

2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources

3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources

Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia
Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia
Help

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Frank Lovece (musician)

Hallo and Welcome to editing Wikipedia. Thanks for creating Frank Lovece (musician), but a couple of points...

If you need to add a disambiguator to a title, like "(musician)", please remember to help the reader to find it. In this case it needed a hatnote which I've added at Frank Lovece using the {{about}} template. Sometimes it'll be a case of adding to a disambiguatio page ("dab page"), eithr at the basic title or at "...(disambiguation)". It helps the reader, and helps avoid a future editor accidentally creating a duplicate page because they didn't check carefully enough for this one.
Don't add stub categories directly. Add any categories you can, and then add {{stub}} or the specific stub templates like {{Australia-poet-stub}}.
A really useful quick way to add three useful bits of information is "subst:L", ie the substituted version of the template {{L}}. By typing {{subst:L|1956|2018|Lovece, Frank}} I created birth date and death date categories and also added the DEFAULTSORT which makes him sort alphabetically under L instead of F. If he was still alive, adding just a birth date, or leaving both dates blank but adding the pipes to show empty fields, (eg {{subst:L|||Lovece, Frank}}) would add the Category:Living persons. It's clever stuff, and a way to add a lot to the article with minimal typing.

Hope that helps. Happy Editing. PamD 16:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That all seems really helpful. Mo Billings (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Death by Design

Hello, Mo Billings,

Thank you for creating Death by Design.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 17:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Leah Betts

As i pointed out in my edit summary, I turned 18 in April 1998 but didn't finish my schooldays until the following November. Given Betts's death was only a few days after she turned 18, it seems highly likely that she had yet to finish Year 12. PAustin4thApril1980 (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) @PAustin4thApril1980: Unfortunately, what you did (or didn't do) in Australia in 1998 is original research; that is, citing your own life experience as a source. But on the English Wikipedia, we are governed solely by what independent, third-party reliable sources say. And as Mo indicates, the sources do not consider her to have been a "schoolgirl" in the commonly accepted sense but, rather, a young woman. Of course, if you can find sources saying otherwise, you are welcome to start a talk page discussion requesting their inclusion (which, incidentally, is probably where this conversation should be taking place). 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:351D:5D4E:DE6:966F (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H'mmm, on this, I note that JBW had cause recently to remind you about our sourcing requirements; although your increased use of edit summaries is appreciated. 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:351D:5D4E:DE6:966F (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PAustin4thApril1980: there are two things that trouble me about your edit. The IP editor is correct that speculating based on your personal experience is not acceptable sourcing for Wikipedia. But even if we knew that Leah Betts was still in school at that time, at 18 she is a woman, not a girl. I think it is appropriate to qualify that to "young woman" because of the circumstances of the case. Mo Billings (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very minor correction...

... but I thought I might as well mention it. In case you didn't realise, when I wrote "such a basic principle as that a Wikipedia's personal judgement is not a reliable source" I meant to write "such a basic principle as that a Wikipedia editor's personal judgement is not a reliable source". JBW (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I knew what you meant. :) Mo Billings (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Hello, I'm Eyebeller. I noticed that in this edit to Zoie Palmer, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Eyebeller (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the edit summary, which said "No point having a personal life section if it only contains trivia about her sister". ;) Mo Billings (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I am replying here, not on WP:BLPN#Moving forward as I decided answering your question about the photos of Alexandra Lalonde would be off topic there...

Do you know who Norman Jewison is? He is a successful and highly regarded film director, who founded the Canadian Film Centre.

Its main activity are one year mentorship programs, for small groups of Canadians who are more or less beginning of their careers. If you know any Canadian actors, directors, or film producers, there is a good chance they are an alumni of this program. Ms Lalonde is an alumni of the program.

They hold half a dozen, or a dozen, events per year, and they have published several thousand photos from these events. One of the first photos I uploaded from their flickrstream showed elderly Jewison talking to five young actors. I recognized Sarah Gadon, but I didn't recognize the other four, including Tatiana Maslany. Maslany was almost completely unknown, then, as the photo was taken a couple of years before her breakout role, in Orphan Black. We have lots of photos of Maslany - now. But, because I cropped a photo of her, then, we had one waiting, when she became notable enough.

The Canadian Film Centre events are generally by invitation. Individuals identified in those images are almost all relatively significant in their field, all potentially the subject of a BLP.

For most individuals I generally only crop a single headshot. I made most of the crops of Ms Lalonde when I was still figuring things out, and I made more crops of her than of others individuals.

Commons SCOPE rules are not the same as wikipedia's notability rules.

I hope this satisfies your curiousity. Geo Swan (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense, but you can understand how it might appear creepy to collect images of attractive young actresses on Commons? Mo Billings (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To show no hard feelings

Rather than put words in your mouth, hopefully you will appreciate my putting images in your article? --GRuban (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Mo Billings (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jake Angeli, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thou shall not remove the template without resolving the problem first. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Jake Angeli. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs [1] Walrus Ji (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Walrus Ji (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Walrus Ji: I don't understand why you left these templates on my talk page. Please explain. Mo Billings (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Billings, the explanation is in the template, if only you bothered to read them. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji It might be better if you slow down and try to communicate with other users more effectively. Why did you leave those templates? What are you trying to tell me? Mo Billings (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Noticeboard

I thank you for your diligence and evenhandedness. I only want to clarity a factual point: If you're speaking about Newsday, it is the 12th-largest newspaper in the country, by circulation, and one of four New York City metro newspapers. It has won 19 Pulitzer Prizes and has been a finalist for 20 additional. More prosaically, its film critic is one of Rotten Tomatoes' "Top Critics." To say it is not "a newspaper that most people would use as a reference and [that citations of it are] far out of proportion to its circulation or influence" isn't really accurate.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't dissing Newsday when I wrote that. Particularly in these times, I'm happy to see such solid circulation figures, but it's still a regional newspaper. Mo Billings (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for the quick response. "Regional" is something one could say of most newspapers — and while USA Today is national, it certainly doesn't have the same reputation for investigative reporting and politically in-depth stories. I'm also not sure regionality is an issue involving interviews with internationally known figures. To give just one (apparently now infamous) example, only to Newsday did David Schwimmer directly debunk widespread claims that he is related to Lacey Schwimmer and that he appeared in Biloxi Blues, at least as far as I could find. If he's done it elsewhere, then by all means, replace the Newsday cite. Again, thank you for being a reasonable human being throughout all this.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenebrae: You've convinced me that I was unfair to Newsday. Although I tend to think of papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post as national, they really aren't. They may get circulation outside of their regional areas but they are still regional newspapers and reflect that in their coverage. Mo Billings (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and explanation

Hi Mo, sorry if I sounded harsh at AN regarding your question. There are lots of reasons to have a prior account and not disclose it WP:CLEANSTART. Asking hurts someone doing a legit Cleanstart because they have to lie, be silent and raise suspicions, or bring up the past they are trying to leave behind; so unless there is a reason to suspect wrong doing, its not appropriate to ask and could put another editor is an uncomfortable place for no reason. Even if there were a problem in the past, as long as they have notified ArbCom and are acting under their guidance, there isn't a problem.

To be clear: I have no idea if Mike is doing a clean start.

Hope you're well, best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 05:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I understand. Mo Billings (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I appreciate your note at Emma Portner, seeking conciliation and trying to calm the waters. These last few weeks have been very emotionally trying, and being bullied on that talk page is just one more bit of harassment. On top of that, I've still gotten no final answer from the powers-that-be. So your kindness at the talk page ... I'm grateful to be be treated like a human being with feelings.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. Mo Billings (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New York Dolls

This edit cited self-published content from Genius.com while breaking the consistency of source-formatting required in a featured article and adding re-rankings that had already been noted in an adjacent footnote into the sentence, adding undue emphasis to one magazine's list. Does that still sound reasonable to you? isento (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what happened to "moving on and doing something else ..." ? isento (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If other editors add things that aren't well-referenced, you can just fix the reference instead of deleting it with a dismissive edit summary like "not important". I've fixed the reference myself. It was quite easy to do. Rolling Stone holds a major position in popular music criticism so it don't think it's a problem if their well-read lists get mentioned more than once. Mo Billings (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You screwed up the sourcing again, leaving a carrot (<) in the text. And you reduced the readability of the paragraph with a jump not only from the album's accolades to the song ranking, but you also broke the chronological flow of that paragraph ending at 2003 and leading to 2004 in the next paragraph. The 2020 ranking was already included in the footnote and appropriately sourced, so I did not remove the information from the article. At this point, WP:3RR and WP:BOLD take effect and we can discuss this further at the talk page before deciding on any further action. If you have anything to argue. isento (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is just jarring from a logical standpoint to lead the mention of the list with the song ranking when the subject of the paragraph is established by that point as the album's rankings. I don't understand this approach. But I am open to hearing out a different point of view at the article talk page. I don't know that Rolling Stone carries as much cache or weight now as it did in 2003. So whether the 2020 list has been well-read or not sounds like a matter of opinion, unless third party sources can establish otherwise. Maybe I can be convinced to include the re-rankings, on the grounds that its standing has withstood the years since 2003. But not like this, where the source formatting and prose quality have to suffer as a result. isento (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The album's standing, that is. isento (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the sourcing used through out the article is Harvard style, using the sfn template. isento (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit-warring instead of fixing the citation? How is that helpful to me or the editor who originally added the material or the reader? Mo Billings (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring the fact that this information (and its citation) already exists in the footnote (and in proper formatting) and that you are doing the opposite of improving the text ?? isento (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

??? isento (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a report at 3RR about your edit warring. I will wait for the result. Mo Billings (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. isento (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have made it clear that I find your messages hostile and aggressive. Please do not post on my talk page unless there is a good reason. Mo Billings (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well then don't start an edit war with me if you're unwilling to communicate. isento (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find your stalking of my activity so far creepy and your messages condescending, smug, and toxic. Why should I care if you find me aggressive or hostile? isento (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]