User talk:BilledMammal

Sometimes this user has the attention span of a squirrel. If you were expecting a reply or follow-up to something and this user never provided one, you are invited to ping them or leave a message on their talk page reminding them to do so.

Hello, BilledMammal,

I found this page interesting and I wanted to encourage you to update it every few days or maybe once a week, taking off SPI cases that have been closed. I'm not sure how much work it takes to put this together but I found it useful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I've updated it.

I'm going to be retiring from Wikipedia soon, so won't be able to continue doing so for long, but if you are interested I can provide the code that produces the table - it's very little effort to run. Send me an email if you are. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No significant coverage (sports) has been nominated for merging with Template:No significant coverage. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there BilledMammal, well I know you've got a lot on but I'm hoping that you can help me here. Every time I put in a Category:Metronome Records artists on an artist's page, a bot comes a long and changes it to Category:Warner Music Sweden artists. I know that somewhere back in time someone had a request to change it to Warner as per below
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 10 - Wikipedia.
Well Warner may have bought out Metronome in later years. But Metronome was Metronome for many years. Please see the Discogs - Metronome page. So, what has actually happened is that history has been buried. And there's enough info out there for a stand-alone Metronome Records page. Please can you help in instigating a discussion to restoring Metronome to what it should be. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop using my AE reports to try and get other editors in trouble. Best bet? Don't comment at all on my AE or other noticeboard filings unless they directly involve you. You'll notice I do the same. I am not your vector, cut it out. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, we're going to look at the entire situation when assessing AE reports. Bringing up the behavior of an editor that was party to a specific dispute is expected. Demanding another editor not discuss disputes you've brought to AE is inappropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about the both of you don't involve yourselves in my disputes in the future? Levivich (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to call out the obvious POV pushing that is occurring here. Me too.

just two months after the previous was closed 16 days after the move review closed, and you know that's the relevant time period, not two months, how is it possible that you did not mention this very relevant time frame? Because saying "16 days" wouldn't support your point; "two months" makes it sound like a long time. You know damn well if it had been two months, I would never have deleted that RM.

that RM was opened just a month after a previous RM - "more than a month" would have been more accurate, and make more sense in comparison to "16 days", but hey, that wouldn't have supported your narrative as well

...after a previous RM was closed against moving the article to a more definitive title. It's amazing that you even draw this comparison. The actual RM history:

• Jan 13 - Feb 13, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war, not moved [1]
• Feb 29 - Mar 26, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → Attempted genocide by Israel in their 2023 attack on Gaza , not moved [2], close writes "I think that a hypothetical Gaza genocide article would probably have some distinctions from either of the existing titles"
• May 3 - Jul 3, Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza → ?, moved to "Gaza genocide"
• Jul 22 - Aug 22, move review, endorsed
• Sep 7 (16 days later) - Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024, Gaza genocide → Accusations of Gazan genocide in the Israel–Hamas war, back to "accusations", which basically the same as "allegations," the title we just moved it from

These same editors had no objection to that RM If it's not moved, it makes sense to keep trying with a new RM (especially when the closer of a previous one suggests it). If it is moved, and the move is endorsed at MR, it doesn't make sense to open a new RM back to the original title 16 days later. Surely you can understand the logic of this, and understand that it has nothing to do with POV pushing.

and some such as David A were instrumental in opening it. False statement. The RM you linked to was opened by another editor on May 3. You linked to an edit by David A that was on June 16, over a month later. That is not accurately described as "instrumental in opening it" in any possible way. Further, the edit isn't David opening an RM, it's David trying to bring that RM to a close. Further further, it worked, and brought the RM to successful consensus that was upheld on MR.

Effectively, these editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not Absolute, verifiable bullshit. Do you have any evidence that any of the editors you are referring to favored "Allegations of genocide by Israel in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war" in the previous RM? [3] I didn't vote in that RM. Neither did Selfstudier, TarnishedPath, or Sean.hoyland, WikiFouf, xDanielx, Bluethricecreamman... the other editors who commented at the AE. You opposed that RM, and David A supported it. So what? David A also wrote, in that RM that he finds "Gaza genocide" preferable. So, pretty consistent on his part. You have zero evidence to support "editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not."

and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this. So who is in this tag-team, then? And who's using AE to try and enforce what, exactly?

I think you have some more editing of your statement to do. Levivich (talk) 04:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, since this isn’t the right place for this discussion:

1. Whether you consider the time since the RM or the move review the relevant period, the double standard is telling.
2. It shouldn’t matter whether the result is "moved" or "not moved". They are equally valid consensuses, and it makes no sense to say that it’s acceptable to have a new RM shortly after one but not after the other. I’m also not seeing that comment by the closer as recommending a new move discussion.
3. The editors opposing this new discussion favour "Gaza genocide". Further, the RM I’m referring to is the second (proposing "attempted genocide"), not the first.
4. David A’s edit opened up the "three options" section, which was the one that eventually found a consensus. I believe "instrumental" is an accurate description.
5. The members are you and Selfstudier. With that said, believe it or not, I have been attempting to not have an issue with you; for example, I declined to bring up your multiple reverts within 24 hours (18:55, 5 August 2024, 18:51, 5 August 2024) to shut down discussions on the inclusion of the death toll, even though it would demonstrate:
   • A pattern of involved closures at that article
   • A pattern of double standards, where you are allowed to revert multiple times to close a discussion, but other editors aren’t allowed to revert multiple times to reopen one

As this is the wrong location, please make further replies at AE. BilledMammal (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better check those diffs and dates again, and then edit that statement, too. Levivich (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, corrected; I provided the second diff twice. BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check again. Levivich (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fixed now? BilledMammal (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you haven't declared your conflict of interest in the NSPECIES debate despite being a platypus. Polygnotus (talk) 05:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Siren's Curse on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you easily add a restriction to User:BilledMammal/Move+ that prevents it from notifying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council about anything that happens in the mainspace? If this would take more than 10 minutes, it may not be worth it, but if it's quick and easy, then it would be more effective than individually educating each editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Twitter on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BilledMammal. In the arbitration enforcement referral regarding Palestine-Israel articles, there is a new motion proposed which pertains to you. The motion would open a new arbitration case with you as a party. If you wish, you may comment on the motion. If a case is opened, you will have an opportunity to submit evidence at that time. SilverLocust 💬 23:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BilledMammal! Thank you very much for writing Move+; it's an extremely helpful tool when closing RMs :). I have one small feature request for you: When closing a discussion with a move to a different title than the one initially proposed (clicking "Specify different titles"), could the tool be made to make the bold part of the closing statement "moved to <title>", rather than just "moved"? That would make it a bit clearer what the consensus was. Thank you! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Catholic theology on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the extent of your involvement in the production of Ashley Rindsberg's article "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"? Is it zero or non-zero? If it is non-zero, could you describe the extent and intended objectives. I am interested in the delta between intended objectives and actual consequences within the topic area. Thanks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero involvement - I'll add, in response to this comment, that as I will no longer be around for most of ArbCom case, I would prefer one did not happen at this time. When I originally announced my intention to retire, it appeared a case would not be going ahead, but now circumstances have changed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. For interest, I'm not in favor of an ArbCom case because I think it would end up having too many moving parts. I would rather see an effort to decouple things and address them individually in sequence or in parallel over time so that there are separate tasks (or even experiments) that address things like the Tech for Palestine stuff, EC policy, protection policy, checkuser policy, biased editing etc. Although I think the chance of solving or improving anything is very small, being much less ambitious might help to increase the chances a little bit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]