Yarra Falls, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks, User:Theroadislong. I wasn't expecting such a quick response! BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kimiko Ezaka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freestyle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilledMammal. Please note my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethiopia/Geography#Woredas or Districts before making further changes to those articles. Thanks. Nurg (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, BilledMammal! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clubmen of Dorset and Wiltshire, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thank you bot. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wehda Street airstrikes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Fall of Kabul (2001) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BuySomeApples (talk · contribs); I appear to be too late to reply, but I'm happy with the primary hook :). Have a good day, I'm off to get some apples! BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good @BilledMammal:! It looks like my apple propaganda is working... BuySomeApples (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amrullah Saleh 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 20:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y--BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fall of Kabul (2001), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the 2001 Fall of Kabul, young men lined up to have their beards shaved off? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fall of Kabul (2001). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fall of Kabul (2001)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update! BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Belaya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crimean Tatar.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Sir. I have nominated your work at WP:ITN/C Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more others work by this point (including your own) but thank you all the same; I find it a particularly interesting turn of events. BilledMammal (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 September 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Aukus, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 03:45, 18 September 2021 (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 19:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y - Done though the lack of specification made it a lengthy endeavour... BilledMammal (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

السلام שלום We invite you to join WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. There you can also find and coordinate with users who are trying to improve Israeli–Palestinian conflict articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the project page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other project members. Happy editing, Shrike (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:AUKUS 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 23:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y - Done, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You cited this ArbCom case as a reason to believe that INVOLVED applies to anyone who has a "rooted interest" in a topic. This is a misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. ArbCom is not the Supreme Court. They resolve disputes, but their rulings are not binding outside of their specific contexts. They do not create precedents. They do not shape policy. They do not interpret policies in a way that is applicable in any other context. Guidelines and policies are formed entirely from community consensus. And ArbCom does not represent the will of the community in that way. They represent themselves as an alternative and last-ditch method of very specific contextual dispute resolution.

Secondly, you cite WP:NACINV, ignoring the fact that this essay again is entirely about the past tense. If you find a policy/guideline that says an editor should avoid becoming involved in a topic after they close a discussion about it, I would love to read it. Because that would fundamentally change how I interact with the wiki.

Otherwise, please do not cast aspersions in my direction unless you are ready to back an accusation up with policy- and diff-based evidence, on a noticeboard or user talk page. That also applies to @HTGS: Thank you both for respecting my wishes. I mean no disrespect, but it is both unfortunately common, and very much against policy to bring these things up as a "trump card" in discussions such as was done at WP:NCNZ. It was grossly inappropriate and an exact violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Not enough to do anything about it, but a warning to the wise. Repeated instances of citing misconduct as a reason to WP:WIN a discussion could be brought to WP:ANI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I was conflict edited so many times, I will add my out of date thoughts here:

"The rule exists for the obvious reason. A lawyer cannot judge their own case or be seen to be doing so. In this discussion they will have no power beyond their knowledge and persuasiveness, both of which are valuable.

The most important thing for me is that what ever we agree, we all toe the line, best we are able. We can’t do that by excluding 'involved' editors from this discussion." Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies @Dushan Jugum, it was a very impassioned discussion on my end. As the person who added that collapse, I give you full and unbridled permission (and anyone else who was EC'd and reads this) to re-add their thoughts to the collapsed discussion. I collapsed it because it detracts from the overall ability to read through that already monster of an RfC. But I don't think adding your edit conflicted thoughts to it will impede that goal in any way. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No no, it went through frustrating and ended up funny. I am overjoyed with the collapse, I was finding it hard to navigate the thread and had been there for a while, woe betide anyone who is new. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Shibbolethink

I did have some misconceptions about how ARBCOM works, and though I still find it a little murky I thank you for providing some clarity. However, in this case I don't believe I was relying on those misconceptions; I believe that we are merely relying on it an authoritative clarification (as in "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable" not "proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience") of how WP:INVOLVED should be interpreted^†.

In regards to WP:NACINV, I would like to clarify that I wasn't citing it, but was instead referring to it as an essay that speaks to the points I raise. In particular, I find Closing editors should be aware of any actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest they may have that could affect their decision making, or give the appearance of impropriety, potentially compromising a consensus reached by the community by casting doubts on a closure. is of particular interest. To me, this would suggest that current but undisclosed conflicts of interest ("rooting interest", as stated by ARBCOM) are problematic, a conclusion that closely aligns with my personal opinions on the matter. I am willing to take it on faith that you did not have a "rooting interest" when you closed the RM's, but your contribution to the later discussion gives the appearance that you did.

I would also like to clarify that when I previously considered bringing the matter to your attention, it was with the aim to post on your talk page rather than the RfC. Further, I would like to clarify that I consider your contribution to the RfC to be "proper", and believe that the formally correct remedy would be to reverse your closures, not strike your contribution, though I would further note that I do not believe such a reversal to be in the best interest of Wikipedia; while I do believe that your closure was potentially "improper", I also believe it to be "right" based on the current guidelines^‡ and consensus based on those guidelines and so per the example in the second paragraph of WP:SNOW, a waste of everyone's time to repeat.

Indeed, my general hope in joining that discussion on it was to have you consider your future actions in the context of it, and not alter your past actions - although here I erred, and though I don't believe my failure to do so was a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, being an effort to resolve my concerns with you, I should have moved the conversation to your talk page much earlier, and to this end I have struck my comments on the RfC, and apologise to you now.

^†I believe this to be in line with your citation of WP:ASPERSIONS, as an information supplement intended to authoritatively clarify WP:PA through relevant ARBCOM rulings

^‡Though there is a debate about whether there was ever a consensus for that guideline, that is a matter to discuss if the RfC closes as no consensus and further RfC's are unable to determine what alterations are required for a consensus to be established, and far too nebulous to consider in closing

PS: I hope nobody minds that I have altered the indentation in the above discussion, in order to better "chain" it. If you do, please don't hesitate to revert

BilledMammal (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry that things went a bit south for you there. For what it's worth, I certainly wasn't suggesting you were breaking rules.

However I did find your closures and subsequent comments in the RfC uncomfortable. As I think BilledMammal put it, it felt outside the spirit of the law. You hinged the closures on acting out the naming conventions as they were currently stated, despite an RfC that was soon to be opened. I would usually hope that any editor would put off closing such discussions until the RfC was closed, especially as the page moves were not of high importance. But then to comment on the RfC with an opinion so far outside of what I expect an informed or considered editor to post... well it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, I guess. The whole thing appeared improper, and as though you were acting with an agenda.

Hope you're dealing ok; I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly wish you no ill will, and I strongly suspect that's true for the others involved. If you're still in med school, or working in healthcare, I'm sure you're well stressed outside of your efforts on Wikipedia, so I'm sorry that involvement with the Project had to add stress in your life like that. Look after yourself first. — HTGS (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses 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 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BilledMammal,

Thank you for tagging Holy ejaculation for speedy deletion, that needed to go! I saw that you use Twinkle for tagging pages but you didn't post a notice on the talk page of the page creator. Please set up your Preferences to always "Notify page creator". Sometimes this involves checking boxes for all of the different types of CSD criteria. I've heard that Twinkle's default setting is that only a few criteria, like A7 and G11, are checked but a notice has to be posted for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.) tagging that you do. Thank you again for your work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting to that, and for letting me know about the need to notify. I've now updated my preferences (after becoming aware of said preferences) so it shouldn't happen again - it seems it is on by default for all rationales except for C1, R2, R3, and R4. BilledMammal (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey, BilledMammal, i didn't want to say this on WT:DYK where everyone'll see it, but the reason I asked you to check ALT3f was because we'd went full circle—it was the same as ALT3a. The discussion's archived now—so nothing to worry about really :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a silly discussion on my part, but I will admit I got a good laugh out of it when you pointed out what happened - thank you! :) BilledMammal (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Charles IV commanded the significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fishponds of the Třeboň Basin), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? nableezy - 00:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you need to stop asking this question. If your suspicion is correct and an individual is a sockpuppet then they will lie and the question provides no benefit, and if they are not a sockpuppet then you have cast WP:ASPERSIONS on an innocent editor. But no, I am not a sockpuppet, and if you believe I am take it to SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the links you post. Read where it says It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. Asking an editor a question once is not, and cannot be, "casting aspersions". So no, I do not need to stop asking this question, and asking it provides for further potential evidence in the response. But thank you for answering. nableezy - 02:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." You might argue that this is an innocent question, but it is too pointed to be innocent particularly given your history, and it contributes to the hostile environment in the area.

Of course, this doesn't prevent you from asking the question, but it does require you to provide evidence when you do. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no accusation. If youd like to report me for casting aspersions feel free. My history? Huh. nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I am not the only editor to have had issues with your approach, and so I have reluctantly done so. BilledMammal (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Arab–Israeli conflict. 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.

nableezy - 03:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, You have expressed interests in the E.Europe (The Holocaust) topics -->[1],[2],[3] I would like you to be aware of the below ruling. Happy editing.

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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.

GizzyCatBella🍁 14:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I added "part II" to the title of the AE report you've initiated, so that it doesn't mis-direct to the earlier AE report on the same editor. Hope that's alright, with you. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey BilledMammal. Yesterday, you helped me fix the FAQ on Talk:Killing of David Amess. I recently started Wikipedia:Assassination as a way to help direct this confusion in the future about Wikipedia not calling the murder of a politician an assassination. I haven't posted an essay before, and I am not sure if you have either, but would you mind helping me out? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just letting you know this AE has been closed (details here). Thank you for withdrawing the filing but please review the level of evidence required for an AE post before posting future ones. . -- Euryalus (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am letting editors know who participated in the recent discussions that decided whether the Killing of David Amess should be called "killing, murder, or assassination", about a new Wikipedia essay being proposed for a new guideline. The essay, Wikipedia:Assassination, explains how the common definition of "assassination" does not determine an article's title. Only reliable sources can determine whether it is murder/killing or assassination. Since you participated in those recent discussions, I wanted to drop a message to you about this new proposal. If you want to leave your opinion about it, you can do so in this discussion. Have a good day and keep up the good editing! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Social democracy 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 03:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, BilledMammal. Nableezy previously had a vexatious WP:AE complaint filed against him on 16 October, as you were of course aware at the time you filed the next one on 24 Oct, since you had commented on the earlier case a little more than a week earlier. Withdrawing your own vexatious complaint[4] after it got no traction isn't good enough, nor do I find Euryalus's mild warning above (not even a logged warning) adequate. You have been blocked for 48 hours for abuse of our processes, and for egregious failure to consider the drain on a user's time and psychic energy that such a one-two of complaints is likely to cause. Please, another time, consider the human behind the username and the effects of your actions on them. Our boards are not intended as tools for taking out opponents from an area, or for making them give up editing by the gutta cavat lapidem technique, not even if unintended. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Also, I will post a request for review of this block at WP:ANI. If you wish to comment there, please write below and I'm sure somebody will copypaste it to ANI. Bishonen | tålk 06:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]