User talk:TheBilly

Hello, I've semi-protected your user page as requested. In future please use WP:RFP to request page protection, not WP:AIV. Thanks. Waggers 11:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've sprotected this talk page due to the ongoing trolling. Please, DNFT. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it. I've actually been ignoring them algother, not even reverting their edits, because that would give them self-importance and 'feed' them. Luckily you and Bencherlite dealt with their efforts persistently. I appreciate it alot. Thanks, both of you! - TheBilly 12:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Bencherlite 12:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct in pointing out the Kimya Dawson article is poor quality and in need of refs, the idea that she, and the Moldy Peaches, are not notable is risable. The band spearheaded the anti-folk movement of the early 2000's rising to international fame. She alone gets almost a quarter of a million google results. Both Kimya and the band's profile are due to rise a fair bit in the near future with the release of the Juno movie which features their music on the soundtrack. Wwwhatsup 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, I don't care. Notable means that they have had professional, respected sources make mention of them. If they're notable, prove it. Put up or shut up. TheBilly 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the Juno info to the article. Wwwhatsup 23:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified your "trivia" tag in SQL injection to read as follows:

{{trivia|date=November 2007}}

You had used "Nov 2007". Please note that dated maintenance tags use the full month name and year to automatically add the article to a dated maintenance category (Category:Articles with trivia sections from November 2007 in this case) to make it easier for cleanup editors to work the backlog of articles that need such attention. If one doesn't follow the specific date format, the article won't be properly categorized. Please consider this for your future edits. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billy, this entry was not my original content. But I do not see how that bit of info falls under what you call speculative or "original research". Nobody knows the intention of the Kellogg's company, so it is important to state that. Please explain your point of view here. The point of discussing these things first avoids edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepyjuly (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following the rules avoids edit wars. Original research has to prove itself, people who remove it don't TheBilly (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's just my interpretation of the policy then, oh well. Although I don't see that it should warrant being labelled as vandilism... Gran² 16:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup. It was not my assumption that your edit was in bad faith. The statement you corrected in its original form could be interpreted two different ways. Knowing a little bit about the history of the project, I strongly suspects that "then" was the original intent. Sorry also for the rather aggressive edit summary. There has been some heated debate about trivia recently and I suppose my reflex is to be a bit defensive about the project. Again, I apologize. Lastly, thank you for your grammatical corrections to the page; your corrections were much appreciated. Sbacle (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]