User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article

There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive

RE: Speedy deletions

I'm sorry, but a speedy deletion is a speedy deletion. WP:CSD is very clear in this regard. These articles do not fit these criteria, so please try proposing it for deletion or putting it on AFD instead. Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read the Talk pages of articles before nominating them for AfD or trying to Speedy them. The List of gay porn stars article was previously nominated for deletion and the result was "keep".—Chidom ^talk  12:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take more care in avoiding incivility or comments that may be seen as uncivil. I read the discussion page. The nomination you refer to is over a year old. The policy underlying my deletion proposal took effect only a few months ago. Even without the new policy rules, there is nothing wrong with a new deletion proposal more than a year after an earlier one. Especially when the reason is completely different. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found my comment to appear uncivil. It was not meant to be so.—Chidom ^talk  20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbias

I noticed that an editor by the name of Hoary is very bais when it comes to deleting photographers from the fashion photography section. Just recently I added a photographer the shoots for Vogue Magazine and also has won very prestigious awards... all this information is verifiable, and referecnced. I am writing you because I see that you have stood upto this person, in the Luke Duval AFD section. Another, much more established photographer named Seth Sabal has been deleted by Hoary and this photographer, shoots for shot for Vogue; and won the same award as Luke Duval the photographer you protected from deletion. Can you please help me. Thank you Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I will make citations corrections change tone to be less promotional. I know Grace personally and she used to go by Amy Gilbertson. She was in Miss America and runner up to Miss Iowa. I will site her accomplishments and also correct any inadvertent deceptions on my part. I am NOT a promoter, my name is Jeffrey Fry and am a personal friend of Ms. Sharington and thought her life noteworthy. Of course, I bow to your guidelines as you see fit to implement and thank you for your understanding and consideration. You can find me on LinkedIn and Facebook. I live in Austin, TX (jxf@austin.rr.com) is my email address and I invest and help start ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeteye (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of images

Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with Jenny Lynn, Raye Hollitt, Guy Lafleur, and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under WP:Fair use. fbb_fan 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Fair use and the policy described in the copyright tag for those images more carefully. As my edit summaries accurately quoted, "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image." In each case you cited, the article use did not conform to this requirement. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:FU and note that it is in fact a guideline, not a policy. This is clearly stated at the top of the page. fbb_fan 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:FU more carefully. The template you mention refers only to sections 1-4 of the page. Sections 5-8 are formal Wikipedia policy. They are labelled as formal policy by the template preceding section 5. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I believe the section you are citing as the reason for removing images is not in the section marked as "policy".

Incidentally, since you seem to be quite a stickler for policy and such, please note the following from WP:SIG: Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive. fbb_fan 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Builders and The Butchers wikipedia page. - The image that was posted was given to use with permission of the band. Why did you delete this? User:Switchbladesista11:26, 28 December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.23.69 (talk)

Noel Gallagher

Hi there! I was wondering why you made this edit. Gallagher's drug-use in his early days is pretty widely documented – he's even had a few laughs about it during interviews. And the fact that he ripped off "Get It On" is also pretty well-known, although I agree that may have been written in a slightly POV way. But do you think that we should just remove his recreational habits from the article? I wouldn't want to start an edit war, so I just thought I'd see what you think. This paragraph states that if an allegiation is notable, verifiable and important to the article, it should not be removed. And personally, I think Gallagher using drugs was one of the best things to happen to British music – without it, Oasis would have just been some shoddy garage band :) But that's just me! Well, please let me know your thoughts. Happy editing, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material" paragraph of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, statements like these are to be removed immediately if they are not properly sourced. Claims of plagiarism and illegal drug abuse are clearly "negative material." If they are well-documented, just find reliable sources and add the material back, citing those sources. Make sure that what the article says on these matters matches what the source says. No disagreement about content, just about sourcing -- statements like these now must be verified, not just verifiable. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've left a message with the editor who added all that information initially; I'm sure he'll take care of it. :) Ta, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara, I've forwarded the email to the PR dept giving permission for the image. ^Babub→Talk 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chessie Moore

Would have been easy to check that I wasn't libelling her. She freely admits to it on her (already linked) bio/FAQ on her site. So please don't pull out the WP:BLP too quickly. Cheers. MadMaxDog 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that if comments like that aren't sourced, delete immediately. Hard to see how I could act "too quickly". Please explain. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, its okay. I was mainly referring to the fact that the link I gave as a source was already on the page! Though I can understand that with such fetishes, people might be rather restrictive... MadMaxDog 07:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

I am not familiar with the credit card / porn star identity incident you mentioned in AnonEMouse's RFA, but I would like to take a closer look at it. Could you provide some more direct diffs related to Mouse's involvment? Dragons flight 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I provided extensive links and discussion on that page, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AnonEMouse. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"a couple followup questions"

You were very civil, and raised appropriate points. I could hardly do less than respond, briefly at first, then in more detail when JoshuaZ asked. I can't wait for the questions! :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Opposition ... Thanks

Thank You
 

(Open your card) → → →         

Harmonica, Hullaballoo ... (I still think it should have been Peterandthe Wolfowitz) ..., thank you for your civility and reasonableness in your opposition. I can't pretend I wouldn't have preferred you support, but if I had to have opposition, I'm glad it was as reasoned, well thought out and argued as yours. You were amazed the discussion was so civil - well, you made it civil. And for that, I thank you.

As you suspected it would, my Request for Adminship has ended, successfully. And your words there had a lot of impact on me. I would appreciate the chance to show you that you were wrong in your opposition. I expect we will continue to disagree on content issues, but that is all right - it takes views to make this a successful encyclopedia, as long as they are well intentioned and civil they will be appreciated. If there is any admin thing I can do to make your life easier, please ask, and I will do as best I can.

Otherwise I will try to start the admin thing slowly, and not delete the Main Page for at least five minutes. If I mess up, make sure to come to my talk page and give me a good yell. Email also works, and is more private, but talk page will often get a more immediate response. If even that doesn't work, I am, of course, in Category:Administrators open to recall, though I would hope you give the yell route a try first. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Design from User:Phaedriel/Rfa thanks, which amazed me when I got it. GFDL.

CalendarWatcher's reversion

Just to note, CalendarWatcher reverted you here [1]. I agree with you that the merge should be done with a little more effort put into it as to what's necessary and what's not by some users familiar with the topic. I didn't understand his reasoning that 'nothing is stopping you' while merging the article making that impossible. It just sounded abrasive. I know a little about the show myself so I could possibly step in if need be, but as you said, it shouldn't be merged yet. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I might also like to note that this editor is running on a second chance granted by an admin in which he really should be blocked right now for recent violation of the 3RR, as shown here [2]. His editing practices are not improving and you are not the only user he has shown uncivil editing habits with as shown here [3] and here [4]. Given that he should be blocked for violation of 3RR, an admin should most definitely be contacted if he engages in edit warring or violates the 3RR again. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Calton and sockpuppetry

If you blank content on User:Calton again, I will block you for disruptive editing. I've already blocked your IP once, so I suggest you stop. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

With this warning, I believe you were in error. The user in question was engaging in perfectly appropriate blanking of a serious BLP violation. To call someone a "spammer" is a very serious personal attack, remember WP:NPA, and he was using a (misspelling) of the real name of a known critic. The block in this case should have been handed out to User:Calton for violatio of policy, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz could possibly have been thanked for right action.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) [comment originally posted on AuburnPilot's talk page [5]

Dave Simons DRV

In relation to this edit [6], DRV is generally only for admins since they're the ones who can see the full text of the deletion pages. That being said, do you have a link for the cahce of the full text of the deleted article? I'd like to see it and offer help, if I can. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, nothing I see in the deletion policy page on deletion review backs up your claim. Any editor may participate in deletion review. Often the deleted text is not as important as the deletion discusssion which remains for all editors to see. Deletion review is a discussion about the appropriateness of deletion discussion outcomes. I have read many discussions in which normal editors participated. Second, the google cache has now disappeared. But the same content can be found here. [[7]]. Showing that the editor who created the article was actively trying to improve it. It is extremely similar to the text I posted. I do not understand why you think that text was not sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort about the page, I was only asking if it was anywhere where I could take a full look at it. It stands to reason that if only admins can see the content, then only admins would be qualified to figure out whether it should have been deleted in the first place. If that snippet from wikirage is all that exists, there don't seem to be any reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But lack of reliable sources for an article in the process of being written is not grounds for speedy deletion! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the full article so I can't comment on this specific one, but yes, yes they can. The mainspace is not the place to write an unsourced article, as I've tried to explain to the author of this piece. Dayewalker (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues aren't grounds for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion policy, even for BLPs. And certainly not for articles that were being written when the speedy was placed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Without proper sourcing, the subject wasn't notable. I've tried to be as helpful as I can to the author, but if you upload an unfinished, unsourced article to the mainspace, it's probably going to come back down pretty quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

Following on from the discussion here and Auburn Pilot's warning a few sections above on this page, I see that you have continued to disruptively edit User:Calton whilst logged out. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours. I will post the standard block template, which contains details of how to request an unblock, below. _Gb^T/c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

_Gb^T/c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not make the edit I am accused of making. I am obviously not the editor who did so. I am in North America, from a school/library network. As I asked last week, this can easily be checked out as true The banned editor I am for no good reason accused of being is described as being in the Czech Republic, and the IPs involved are traced there by the "GEOLOCATE" function on the contributions page. The accusations were made in a discussion I started. But after I had logged out because the library was closing. The discussion was closed before I could respond. And there was no evidence presented at all. If you examine the edit histories there is no resemblance between what I do and what the user I am accused of being does. Even the administrator who began accusing me of being a sockpuppet (without saying whose) now says on his talk page "I have no idea if you are related to the old sockpuppet accounts mentioned." I also want to say that the disputed edit was not improper. It is the kind of deletion that the Arbitration Committee called for with regard to BLP violations on userpages. No one has seriously claimed that the material I deleted did not have BLP violations in it. I will post more from the Arbcom decisions but I have to research them a little. If this is not good enough then I ask to be unblocked so I can take this to Arbitration since I was just following Arbcom guidelines ! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

While checkuser confirms that aspect of your unblock request, the blocking admin makes a good argument that your behavior has been nonetheless disruptive. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Given that checkuser confirms that aspect of your claim, I've asked the blocking editor to comment here on whether that was the sole basis for the block. — Coren ^(talk) 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I confirm Coren's findings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is  Unrelated to the IP. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock}} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Wikipedia discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Wikipedia policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Jimmy Wales link [8]

• User was blocked at 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC) for 48 hours. It is now more than 48 hours later. — Athaenara ✉ 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name.—Sandahl (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This request is a little tl;dr for my taste, but I should note that it appears he is stating that the situation is "Kafkaesque" as in "reminiscent of the writings of Franz Kafka" (see wiktionary entry.) I don't think he's admitting at ALL to being another user. However, I find his unblock request above to be somewhat ironically Kafkaesque in its own way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Wouldn't recognize the term, no fan of Kafka, much too verbose.—Sandahl (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So lets recap? Blocked for being a sock, shown to be completely and utterly false. Then the block reason was "oh because of that" something that wasn't part of the initial block... but hey he was blocked so he's GOTTA have a reason somewhere... lets look closely... add to that some hmmm how do you put it politely "not all that well read" admin makes a multiple sock offender out of it... quite funny. This bit made my day :) Oh and Kafka is not exactly a verbose writer ;) brilliant yes, verbose... not exactly the 1st thing that comes to mind. Jacina (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the part of your recap that you missed is that this user has been unblocked for three weeks at this point... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case as mentioned

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi

6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".

6.6 The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From request for clarification of the same case, arbitrators statements that directing such comments at specific people crosses the line:

My analysis is that the statement in context would definitely be read as Bedford's own opinion put into a crassly extreme form, but that no-one would seriously read it as a literal statement. It is borderline but I would incline to the view that we cannot insist on its removal. This is partly because, in applying the complained-of remarks generally without naming the users, it is difficult to read it as personally insulting. Users unfamiliar with the dispute, intrigued by the use of such a forceful description, are far more likely to hold it against Bedford especially if they investigate the circumstances. I think in his best interests he should rephrase his remarks, but I strongly suspect that it is his own reputation that will suffer if he choses not to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...I agree with Brad and Sam. While Bedford's comment is highly distasteful to many in the community, it is not directed at anyone specific and is in his own user space. If it were a directed comment, I support removing it. As it is, it's primary negative affect is to the person that wrote it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That is just last month!

From the similar request for comment on Law Lord:

Outside view by Fred Bauder Discourtesy is an increasing problem on Wikipedia. Lack of courtesy has driven a number of editors away from Wikipedia. An assertion by an editor who has departed that the reason they left was lack of courtesy is acceptable. A personal attack would involve not only identifying the person, but an attack that is personal, not merely an assertion that Wikipedia policy was not followed. We should not create a situation where not only is the policy violation tolerated, but even mention of it is forbidden.

Users who endorse this summary:

Fred Talk 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) This is really not problematic at all, and removing and protecting the user page(!) to remove that sentence is just plain absurd. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC) PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Davewild (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC) MikeHobday (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) --NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cheers dude (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Agree with Conti. لennavecia 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The best defense again libel/slander is the truth. Are there rude admins? Yes. Are there abusive admins? Yes. Are there admins who should lose the bit? Hell yes. Is it possible that Law Lord is in fact tired of dealing with them? Yes. Case closed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Ray (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) --Smashvilletalk 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) SIS 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Locke Cole • t • c 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo

You may be pleased to know that Jimmy Wales has made comments supportive of you in relation to your efforts to remove unacceptable comments from Calton's user page and has suggested that the admin who blocked you might want to reconsider his position as an admin (not directly related to your blocking but still related to this matter). Then again you may already know or you may not care. I thought I'd mention it anyway given the bizarre way you were treated over this. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by starting this ANI with regards to Calton, that you have put yourself squarely in Guy's cross hairs. Be careful, they will now try to spin this so that Calton comes off as the victim here, not the aggressor. I suggest you bring this matter straight to Jimbo. 78.102.139.114 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I told you so, they are turning this into "Calton is the victim" and right on cue Guy jumped in. They are also claiming you are the banned Truthcrusader person, of course no one will run a checkuser to verify or disprove it. again, take this to Jimbo. 78.102.139.114 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See? With all the BS flying around about Calton claiming you are Truthcrusader, the initial reason WHY you filed the ANI is lost forever. Also lost is the two personal attacks he made a few days ago on two other editors.78.102.139.114 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kate Jackson

Hello. With regard to your edits to the Kate Jackson article, specifically with regard to your removal of the information regarding Jackson's two treatments for cancer, it seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider that the appropriate edit here would not be to remove the uncited material, but to A) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section.

If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search "Kate Jackson" "breast cancer" and add the reference yourself. As I read that you do your editing work during time at a library, it would seem a greater degree of source information would be available to you there than the average person, as libraries typically subscribe to paid news sites. Barring this, you should take note of the other information on the page relevant to your edit: the Category:breast cancer survivors page links to the Kate Jackson article, and this is evident from that category's tag in the Jackson article. But what is the value to you or another reader of removing this fact from her biography, and from the list of cancer survivors?

Kate Jackson was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and again around 1991. While the first bout was something she kept secret, the second made her decide to make her health publicly known, resulting in her being the subject of a cover story in People magazine. She also underwent open heart surgery in 1994 after discovering she had been born with an Atrial septal defect. She has been active in spreading awareness of both conditions. Please take an interest in the subjects of your edits; when they are clearly not vandalism, spend at least the same minute or two searching for a source as you would editing the material out. If you don't care enough to do so, the answer is to place a cite tag or to walk away from the article. A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to. Abrazame (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Azzareya Curtis

Hello. I saw you previously prodded Curtis' article as NN and for having no reliable sources, so I just thought I'd let you know I AfD'd it for basically the same reasons the other day, if you wanted to join in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzareya Curtis  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Mihaly

Thank you for your contributions to the Robert Mihaly AfD page. I agree with your feedback! Carolinequarrier (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "Strong keep" on girlfriend of aristocrat

Hiya Hullaballoo, I read your "Strong Keep" for the Axelsson Living persons bio, and I'd have to disagree. Reading thru the Swedish and German papers, she has no relationship to the Danish royal house but her boyfriend (they aren't engaged) does, distantly. (I do a lot of royalty stuff and it's hard to keep the "pretty princess!" fandom from swamping Wiki.) Her books aren't notable and the stuff that's in those articles is basically fluff that's paid public relations. There are literally thousands of minor German princes populating the country so I can't see why the girlfriend of one of them gets a Wiki page. Most of the supporting documentation is like reading the National Enquirer only with worse errors; for instance, B Bladen has her as non-English speaking although she was born, raised, and educated in the US through high school. Anyway, she looks pretty with makeup and her boyfriend must really like her, but I'm not seeing that as notable. Best to you, PR (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Krystle Lina´s article

I undid to my last edition the article Krystle Lina because the references has been deleted, and after has been added the deletion quote, but if equal you think the article need more notabillity contact me again --AchedDamiman ([[User talk:AchedDamiman|talk]]) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles Jessicka & Clint Catalyst

Hello User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz- I writing in regard to your edits on articles Jessicka & Clint Catalyst, specifically with regard to your removal of information. It seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider finding the appropriate reference links rather then just removing entire subjects making the articles less factual. In the future please place a cite tag or leave the article "as is". A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to.

I am contacting you in good faith and hope that in the future you will follow wikipedia policy!

thanks, Xtian1313 (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE before criticizing editors who are attempting to enforce those policies. As another user commented on the article you say is about your wife earlier today, a Wikipedia article is "not an opportuinty to spam Wiki with everything related to her." [9] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have stated several times that Jessicka is my wife - examples here:[10] here:[11] & here: [12]

Understand, I am not being uncivil. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's wikipedia page. Removing links wasn't even your edit. See here:[13] I am fine with the edits made by User:Piano non troppo, as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands. Please don't deflect. I am stating facts. I am asking you to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking you to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section.

If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search . If you are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of COI with these articles.

As far a User:Tallulah13's talk page goes please reread what I wrote. [14] and I quote, "If you ever need a third party opinion ( for articles I don't have a COI with) please feel free to hit me up."

I do not know User:Tallulah13. I was being nice. Is being nice to somebody against wikipedia policy? I have not made edits on either Jessicka or Clint's pages. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 has not made edits on Jessicka's page. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 does not know my wife or Clint in real life. She said that my wife emailed her - ? Perhaps on Clint's behalf to say thank you?

In closing, I'm not spamming. I am not making edits. The links in question were not added by me. Is there another problem here that I don't know about? I came to you in good faith, if there's some sort of issue - please enlighten me before I involve others. All items that you've removed have NOW been sourced. Rather then look for the source yourself trying to expand the articles in question, you just removed entire sections! How is that constructive?

I am asking you nicely to please follow wikipedia policy. I am still familiarizing myself with wikipedia but I can tell when somebody has a clear COI when editing certain articles. I look forward to resolving this matter quickly, Xtian1313 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Clint_Catalyst.2C_Jessicka.2C_and_COI-implicated_editors_who_refuse_to_abide_by_WP:RS_and_WP:BLP

Regarding your comments made here: [15]

"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com."

My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com. If you have some issue with her legitimacy, might I nicely suggest that you leave editing her wikipedia page to user(s) who have no COI and have neutral third party opinions. This reason is why I myself do not edit her page.

"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [110], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)"

The episode was filmed in LA not Germany.Germany's Next Topmodel, Cycle 4 You know what people say about assuming. A little research on certain topics goes a long way.

"A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka."

I have no idea what promoting business you are talking about. The end of your ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what you are alluding to. I am telling you it's simply not true. I am coming to you in good faith. If you have some issue with my wife, Clint Catalyst, or anybody whom you assume they are friendly with being legitimate and deserving wikipedia pages, might I suggest that the best course of action is for you to allow user(s) who can be 100% neutral, fair, and willing to do research to edit their articles.

Xtian1313 (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Christie Brinkley

Please, do not post silly things as you did on my talk page. Vanthorn (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think complying with WP:RS and WP:BLP is silly. Perhaps if you reread them your opinion would change. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Vanthorn, my advice is just to ignore him. Hullaballoo has a reputation for trolling Wiki articles and deleting absolutely anything and everything that isn't cited to his standards, rather than simply citing it himself, all the while continually invoking various Wikipedia policies to defend his agenda and making bad faith suggestions such as "you need to 'reread' such-and-such policy." This is referred to as "gaming the system" (WP:GAME), and he is what we call a destructive, rather than constructive, editor. In reality he is simply Wikilawyering, and he has been banned by admins in the past; he likely will be again. Best way to deal with him is simply to revert his edits.Cubert (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I have stated who I am. This is the only name I sign in under. I have given an email address where I can be reached. I have not edited articles that I have a COI with. The fact you, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have a weird obsession in editing all things associated to my wife and myself. [16]

1. 18:13, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Acting: tangential material; reviews of minor films belong, at best, in the articles on the films) (top)
2. 18:12, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Spoken Word: giving a speech at a political rally is not a "spoken word performance," even if it is an open-mike event)
3. 18:11, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Model and stylist: claim not supported by cited page)
4. 18:10, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Personal life: Source says someone else was the MC/officiant at the wedding with pictures showing it wasn't Clint Catalyst)
5. 18:09, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (remove unconstructive changes made without regard to BLP and RS. Candace Bushnell didn't write the pilot to Sex and the City, btw, and the CBS evening news is generally known as having higher ratings)
6. 18:06, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Daniel Franzese ‎ (revert; remove reinsertion of unreliably sourced text made by IP user with false edit summary) (top)
7. 18:04, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) N User talk:69.238.165.217 ‎ (vandalism warning, deletion of GFDL images on bad faith claim of invalid fair use) (top)
8. 18:01, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Kyle Justin ‎ (RVV! Undid revision 287337344 by 69.238.165.217 (talk)) (top)
9. 18:00, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Kyle Justin ‎ (Undid revision 287337608 by 69.238.165.217 (talk))
10. 17:59, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Xtian1313 ‎ (→Sockpuppetry: new section) (top)
11. 17:44, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ‎ (update) (top)
12. 22:38, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Documentation on Clint Catalyst development deal: comments) (top)
13. 22:37, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Clint Catalyst ‎ (typo)
14. 22:36, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (add CBS news report)
15. 22:33, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Television: rewrite text to reflect reference)
16. 22:31, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Works: cut and pasted from his own website, both copyvio and not RS)
17. 22:29, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (→Notes: remove unreliable sources and sources that don't support claims)
18. 22:28, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (not a screenwriter, no produced screenplays or verifiable sales of screenplays)
19. 22:27, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (remove repetition)
20. 22:27, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst ‎ (Not what the cited sources say, and they' don't meet WP:RS anyway Undid revision 286887166 by Jayson23 (talk))
21. 22:26, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Gidget Gein ‎ (→unsourced derogatory material: new section) (top)
22. 22:22, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ‎ (→Career: unsourced, appears intended to demean) (top)
23. 22:21, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ‎ (→Career: unsourced material laced with blp violations)
24. 22:20, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ‎ (→Career: tangential, unreliably sourced to geocities fansite)
25. 22:20, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ‎ (→Career: barely disguised insult)
26. 22:19, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Gidget Gein ‎ (→Career: obvious blp violation)
27. 22:19, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ‎ (→Career: obvious blp violation)
28. 22:18, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ‎ (→Early life: refs reqd)
29. 22:18, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ‎ ("Gidget" was not an actress.)
30. 22:16, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Miguel Rascón ‎ (→Trivia: remove unsourced & mostly unencyclopedic trivia section) (top)
31. 22:14, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Betsey Johnson ‎ (remove borderline advertising for her rental property and unnecessary headline)
32. 22:13, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Betsey Johnson ‎ (→How she started: unsourced namedropping and promotion)
33. 22:12, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Betsey Johnson ‎ (→How she started: remove namedropping)
34. 22:11, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (→History: ref reqd) (top)
35. 22:11, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Betsey Johnson ‎ (→How she started: style)
36. 22:10, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (→Trivia: unsourced trivia sectioon)
37. 22:09, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (→History: self-promotional, w no reliable sources)
38. 22:08, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Daniel Franzese ‎ (→Curator: sourced to press release and deadlink, no indication of encyclopediac significance)
39. 22:07, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (→History: prune unsourced/OR, ref reqd)
40. 22:06, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (→History: remove subjective/promotional/unsourced OR, ref reqd)
41. 22:05, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (→History: no sources, subjective/promotional/OR)
42. 22:04, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (unsourced, subjective/promotional/OR)
43. 18:16, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Marion Peck ‎ (→History: remove unsourced and semisourced namedropping, other ref reqd) (top)
44. 18:15, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Rob Campanella ‎ (→The Quarter After: self-promotional spam)
45. 18:14, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Louise Post ‎ (→Personal life: promotional namedropping) (top)
46. 18:12, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Thee Heavenly Music Association ‎ (→Biography: unsourced/subjective/OR)
47. 18:11, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Chris Vrenna ‎ (→Career: remove lengthy unsourced discussion, other ref reqd)
48. 18:10, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Chris Vrenna ‎ (→Career: 3d party spam)
49. 18:09, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Terri Nunn ‎ (ref reqd)
50. 18:08, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Terri Nunn ‎ (promotional namedropping)
51. 18:07, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jennifer Syme ‎ (→Early Life and Career: unsourced, intrusive personal information, violates BLP re 3d party) (top)
52. 18:06, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jennifer Syme ‎ (→Early Life and Career: name-dropping)
53. 18:06, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden ‎ (→History: name-dropping, unreliably sourced and subjective)
54. 18:05, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden ‎ (→History: 3d party self-promotional spam)
55. 18:04, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden ‎ (→History: add a verb)
56. 18:04, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden ‎ (→History: subjective, unsourced, semispammy)
57. 18:03, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden ‎ (→History: promotional, subjective, apparent copyvio)
58. 18:02, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden ‎ (unreliably sourced and promotional in tone)
59. 18:01, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden ‎ (→History: spam images intended to promote band, not significant examples of artist's work, not really compliant with WP:FU)
60. 18:00, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gottfried Helnwein ‎ (→Personal life: namedropping, main event already mentioned in article)
61. 17:57, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kinderwhore ‎ (clean up language) (top)
62. 17:56, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kinderwhore ‎ (→History: remove long section without reliable sources as OR, blp issues as well)
63. 17:55, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kinderwhore ‎ (rearrange slightly)
64. 17:53, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Roman Dirge ‎ (→Animation: unsourced 3d party promotional (borderline spam))
65. 17:52, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb ‎ (→Style: unsourced, spammy if not dubious)
66. 17:51, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb ‎ (→Style: ref reqd, remove name-dropping)
67. 17:51, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb ‎ (→Recording career: unsourced, bordering on OR)
68. 17:50, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb ‎ (refs reqd)
69. 17:49, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb ‎ (ref reqd)
70. 17:48, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie ‎ (promotional name-dropping) (top)
71. 17:47, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie ‎ (not encyclopedic)
72. 17:47, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie ‎ (refs reqd)
73. 17:45, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie ‎ (unsourced and spammy)
74. 17:44, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) American McGee's Alice ‎ (→Audio: unsourced, appears self-promotional)
75. 17:43, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins ‎ (→History: 3d party self-promotion)
76. 22:38, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jack Off Jill ‎ (→History: change text to reflect what source actually says) (top)
77. 22:36, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jack Off Jill ‎ (→History: unsourced/OR)
78. 22:36, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jack Off Jill ‎ (→History: not supported by cited source)
79. 22:35, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jessicka ‎ (→Jack Off Jill 1992-2000: fails RS as source is geocities page; even if source were RS, cites prediction as fact)
80. 22:34, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jessicka ‎ (→Jack Off Jill 1992-2000: not supported by cited source, apparently not true)

I believe that you are Gaming the system.

Xtian1313 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. This user has been continuously vandalizing the Clint Catalyst page under false claims related to Wikipedia policies, that certainly seem like what that page describes. Granny Bebeb (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, he/she MOST DEFINITELY has a COI with all of these articles/individuals. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes far more destructive edits that actual useful contributions. I hope that some wikipedia editors with more experience than I have can help resolve this inappropriateness.Tallulah13 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am betting that he is some homeless guy since he says that he hangs out in libraries and that is where he gets his internet access. Thats the kind of thing that a homeless guy would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.175.187 (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this all unfold for a while now. I am a fan of a lot of the people listed on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit list. I agree he/she certainly has a COI with all of these articles/individuals. I'm really not sure why a moderator or administrator isn't doing something about this person as they truly are being destructive on a lot of well written wikipedia pages. Parenttrap (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested by User:Jayron32 here [17] - This is my one and only account. Please feel free to check my IP address. Parenttrap (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has repeatedly deleted additions to a biography, eventhough my sources were cited. He never contributes to the discussion talk page, but only leaves vague inaccurate remarks in the description of his edits. I have tried multiple versions and even other users on the discussion page have not agreed with his edits. Where do we go with problems like this?Cobyjak 01 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This may help...?

Hey Hullaballoo! I believe this will be of interest to you: User_talk:AuburnPilot#Help. Essentially, User:Xtian1313 is attempting to out you as being me or my boyfriend. Obviously, for one, that's just not true, outing people is against wiki policy. User:Xtian1313 outed me and attempted to out User:Snuppy as someone, a while ago, and has been repeatedly informed that this is against policy. I believe that the person behind User:Xtian1313 has a long history of editing articles under various revolving IP's and usernames, including User:KurtneyLovelace and User:RickeyGoodling. There is a history of articles related to Scarling and the core member Jessicka being built up/promoted by these IP's/usernames while articles of "perceived enemies" have been continusously torn down with negative/unnecessary/unproductive edits, since day one. These IP's have also included the names of Scarling and Jessicka everywhere on wikipedia, essentially promoting/building up this person/band everywhere, all over wikipedia, even on the page for Silver Lake, California!

Not to junk up your page with personal experiences, but my boyfriend Kyle Justin was in their band, and his former bandmates (the 2 core members) do not like him, and neither does the person behind all these edits.  ::clears throat:: I created a profile for him last year (Kyle Justin) before we were together and before I was in his band, not really understanding the policies of wiki involving conflicts of interest. I've since been outed/outed myself. And, myself and a good friend of mine, who created the articles related to Skeleteen, no longer use the same account. I realize now I have been in violation of wiki policies before, and have made a concerted attempt to not violate them again. In any event, the articles for Kyle Justin, TC Smith, and Robin Moulder (all people this person doesn't like) have been torn down repeated/obsessively since they were put up. It's all in the history. Thank you for reverting the most recent edits to the Kyle Justin page done by this person, as it's obviously the same person doing unproductive/destructive/possibly hateful things. Even if the photos need to be taken down (I don't know), it's not right for that user to be gaming the system. Kyle even came on here on User:Chzz's talk page to ask if someone could delete the article about him, because he doesn't want to be lumped into a category with the fame-junkies/minor league "internet celebrities"/wannabes. (You can find that here: User_talk:Chzz/Archive_5#deleting_article_on_me.3F.) He got permission from Chzz to delete defamation of character/libel/legal threats and false accusations against him by User:Xtian1313 on Chzz's talk page, but was unsuccessful at having his article deleted, as Chzz says it conforms to the notability standards. In any event, I hope some of this will help you out... you can delete all this to clean up your page. Just trying to help you out with more history on this situation. There are a lot more links I could send you for more information, if you like. (I honestly don't know if any of this helps.)

Anyway, thanks for looking out. It's about time. User:Snuppy and I have talked about doing a user check on this person for a while (go here to see that: User_talk:Snuppy#Check_user). I checked all the IP's you listed against the ones I have, they all go back to the same location (the precise longitude and latitude) in Los Angeles, California. It's been a long time coming... I believe it's obvious that this all comes down to one person and a user check isn't even needed to see that. Honestly, I would love for a user check to be done on myself just to prove that I haven't done ANYTHING to the pages related to her (Jessicka) or Scarling... I could care less about their articles, as I do not ever want to associate with people like that, anymore, and neither does my boyfriend.  :) Matt –  Godblessyrblackheart  (talk)  02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Question on Clint Catalyst Reverts

I am wondering how listing books that Mr. Catalyst has authored with ISBN numbers is considered WP:RS or WP:BLP. I am just curious as I personally see no problem with these edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 17:07

It was cut-and-pasted from Catalyst's own website, with ISBNs added, so it fails WP:RS for lack of independent reliable 3d party sourcing as well as raises copyright problems. It bore a marked resemblance to a list of books Catalyst was pushing in his website store, so it was promotional. A laundry list of non-notable short stories anthologized in non-notable anthologies doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, unless it's for a world class writer like Jorge Luis Borges. Granny/Amber/Tallulah is editing in concert with Catalyst, for promotional purposes, and it's a bad idea to encourage her. Nobody else does. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, that's a load of malarkey! Authored books, are authored books, regardless of if you think this is for promotional purposes. Second of all, I don't know how you know my real name is Amber - that is even more proof that YOU have a COI with editing Catalyst's page and need to STOP. And lastly, I have no damn clue who this Granny person is, but they are NOT me. I've no reason to lie about that. I openly admit that Amber/Tallulah is the same person (and that is me). I'm NOT making major edits to the Clint Catalyst article anymore. Only very small things when I see something tiny. So, your snarky little comment of not encouraging me is asinine (just like you).76.229.108.103 (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not only am I not Tallulah/Amber(?), the list was not "cut and pasted" as you continuously claim. If you'll notice, comparing them to the list on his website, some of the books don't even have the full titles listed on the website. Also, I did not see a store on his website when I looked. Catalyst is a well known author, there is no reason to omit entries from his bibliography which are well documented. If you think the books need more 3rd party sourcing than just ISBN numbers, add the citation needed tag instead of making destructive edits. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless if it is copied, with the ISBN numbers added, that makes it reliable. ISBN numbers are as reliable as it gets. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 6, 2009 @ 06:11

Thanks, that's what I figured. This guy has a serious COI issue with the article, and it's going to take some work to get it back to a complete state. I'm going to go add these back now. Granny Bebeb (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you know what in the world everyone is claiming your COI is with the article? I've warned User:Tjcrowley to stop with the blatant reverting but I think we need a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to get some sanity on this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue what they think the conflict is. If I remember it right, it began with Xtian1313, who insisted that my removing unsourced/unreliably sourced information from the Jessicka article was evidence of COI. Then the other buzznet folks picked it up. They throw accusations around pretty much insiscriminately. Check out this sockputter accusation, claiming that User:Bali ultimate is the same user as me. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz/Archive Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to go to the COIN noticeboard. They seem to be implying I have a COI too now. It's clear someone has told them just enough to be annoying. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ann Jillian source removal

You removed one citing source representing actress Ann Jillian and declared it unreliable. For what particular reason?

UWEC School Classs at 173.26.80.178 (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Whosdatedwho.com is a gossip site, based primarily on user contributions, without any demonstrated practice of or reputation for fact checking. It therefore fails the requirements of WP:RS, which presents Wikipedia's reliable source policy in some detail. At best, sites like that are tertiary sources at best, and generally to be avoided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Lenora Claire -- COI and Sockpuppets

Dear Hullaballo,

I notice that you, too, have been trying to clean up the Lenora Claire article which -- when I stumbled on to it -- read rather more as a press release. In reviewing the edit history I see SPA LenoraClaire has been active in editing it as has a Los Feliz Los Angeles ip which I suspect to be controlled by Ms Claire. Most recently another ip vandalised the talk page to delete a COI note I added. Do you think it worth reporting these socks or protecting the page or something else? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Clint_Catalyst COI concerns

I have posted a note at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Clint_Catalyst about the COI concerns with Clint Catalyst. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Jessicka, Christian Hejnal, Scarling./Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtian1313

Now that the sock puppet investigation you started has come to a conclusion, "Conclusions I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser." [18]

I am coming to you in good faith- inorder to ask you not to edit articles dealing with my wife Jessicka, myself, (Christian Hejnal), or my band Scarling. (including albums).

I myself am not editing these articles, for obvious reasons. Please allow editors who do not have a conflict of interest with these subjects and can maintain a neutral point of view to edit these articles. fair? Whatever issues you have with me, please feel free to email me at scarlingmusic@aol.com so we may take them off wiki. Thank-you. Xtian1313 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz Xtian1313 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your PRODs of various porn actors within a short timespan

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have prodded a number of these articles within a short timespan (minutes). It seems likely that you have made no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE. A number of the pages do make claims to notability, a porn star with a Magna cum laude university degree, a porn start with a black belt in tae-kwondo and bronze medal from Junior Olympics, a pornstar which has appeared in every major men's magazine, a porn star with a whoppin' film count (161), sprinkled with nominations within that film industry, some multiple; and a person (photographer) for whom I think the bio-porn is not even relevant.... It raises the probability that someone with an interest in the topic could establish notability. I'm therefore not at all sure that your nominations are uncontroversial and hence suitable for PROD. Reading some of the posts above also leads me to believe, that it is defensible for me to revert those PRODs, which I have done. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I too am getting the impression from above that you may be attempting to moralize based on your personal philosophy. That has no place in Wikipedia. If you don't like certain topics, please feel free to stay away from those pages. Lexlex (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An3

I've removed an edit of yours from AN3 [19]. The section is closed, and your edit was unhelpful. Please seek to avoid inflammatory language William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COIN

Hello Hullaballoo. I took a look at the case you recently filed at WP:AN3. If you can establish that people connected with the subject are editing their article, you could file at WP:COIN. This could be a better venue than AN3. Due to the nature of your work, you may wind up sounding combative. But if COI is calmly assessed, reasonable remedies can be put in place, oftentimes by agreement. Admin action is possible in cases where nothing else seems to work. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Removal of valid AIV report without blocking vandal -- why

I swear I did not do that. Someone is messing with my account. Even though I have changed my password. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs)☺ 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi

I've semi-protected your user page due to anon vandals. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RE:Swancookie

I'll keep it short with you as I did with Swancookie.

I have no interest or care as to what the ongoing dispute is concerning yourself and several other users.

My sole intent was to get all this into dispute resolution and stop cluttering up talk pages, message boards, and using helpme templates. That is all, I have no sides and I don't care to. Keegan (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever your intent, it wasn't appropriate to give Swancookie a response that appeared to approve of clear personal attacks like "underhanded jerk." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Keegan (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blake Lively article

I never put spam links in any article. I actually just clicked the link and it took me to scans of a Nylon magazine article. How is that vandalism? If you're having trouble accessing the article, please take that up with the site manager, not me. Thanks. --MgCupcake (talk)

You put in links to a spamsite and claimed they were links to a legitimate source. That's never appropriate. Even if you hadn't intended to deceive anybody, 1)you should know that sites like that pose hazards to users (my antimalware software reported a stream of tracking cookies and other stuff coming from that site that does nothing but bad stuff to any legitimate user), and 2) the link violated multiple other Wikipedia policies/guidelines, like WP:LINKVIO and WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It's also a site that requires registration, which is generally frowned on, since so many of such ssites (there are, of course, recognized exceptions) exist to harvest email addresses for sale to spammers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Just so you know, you don't have to be an admin to mark a topic "resolved". -t'shael^chat 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not, but a participant in an active debate certainly shouldn't shut it down in order to prevent another editor from responding. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Illegal Link Deletion

We have proof that you are abusing your powers and privileges in regard to external link deletion. Please leave the name of your supervisor so way may send said proof forward. I hope you learn a lesson from this and cease to use your own personal bias to hurt the wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalCorp (talk • contribs)

I've left a comment on this editor's page. Threatening or trying to intimidate another editor is not allowed here [20]. Dayewalker (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Julie Benz

Hi, I declined your request for PP of Julie Benz, but you should certainly renominate it if the vandalism starts up again. I believe it is only one disruptive editor, which should be able to be handled through warnings/blocks. It would be great if you could issue warnings as well. I won't always be logged in, so again issue warnings and feel free to renominate it if the vandalism continues. Thanks for your help! Plastikspork (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerri Manthey

Thanks, it looks much better now. Plastikspork (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Courtney Culkin

How do you justify deleting my entry but retaining the entry about her appearing on Playboy TV? Kuzosake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC).

Because it made unreferenced health-related claims in a BLP, because the version of the interview on the Maxim site doesn't identify her as the playmate, but only as "Courtney" (not "Cortney"). Absent a verifiable source, we're left with only your opinion that "Courtney" is the playmate "Courtney Rachel Culkin," and though that evaluation might turn out to be true, it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability. The Playboy TV claim and other unsourced stuff in the article could also be removed, but my edit today came while I was reviewing recent changes, rather than the entire article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I remember the version in the magazine didn't mention her as a Playmate either. I guess the interview on their site didn't show a picture? I remember when I saw it...I had to do a double-take. It was definately her, but I guess since it doesn't meet the Wikipedia standards then oh well. Thanks for clarifying...Kuzosake Kuzosake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

Opinion requested

If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your input on this topic: Template talk:Infobox adult female#Official website in infobox and ext. links section

Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Catch!

Thank you for catching the Jodie Foster mis-edit re. Yale School of Drama cat. That editor also added the same cat to the Meryl Streep article. I don't know if it's true in Streep's case, but I've asked the editor via User:Talk page to stop removing the Yale U. cat. Even if Streep or any megastar attended the Drama school, readers may still look for them in the Yale U. cat as well.
 —  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine Ellsworth<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mayer Brown

Just a friendly note on Mayer Brown. I wasn't comfortable deleting this as a speedy, since there were non-infringing versions and, as you rightly pointed out, it was a complicated case. Instead, I took a chainsaw to it and rewrote everything outside the info box. Mind taking a look and letting me know if it works for you? Thanks! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, good job! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

David L Cook

Thank you for catching the issue with that award. Cook has won an Emmy with NBC and I thought that was the one. I really do appreciate you catching it and fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Hi, thanks for looking over the Dana Delany article. But I wanted to know further why you edited out from Dana's significant others people like Treat Williams and Henry Czerny. Yahoo Movies lists them both as significant others for Dana. And what source did you say was NNDB (and why do you think it's a bad source?) On the internet, I've found pictures of Dana with Treat Williams (standing close together). And my sense is the connection with Henry Czerny is real as well. How did you come to the conclusion that the sources which you removed were bad ones? Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

NNDB not reliable, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing_BLP_concerns#NNDB_Notable_Names_Database and comments like Jimbo Wales's: "Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Wikipedia"

news.absolutely.net is an aggregation sits which appears to get most of its content from WENN, which identifies itself as a celebrity gossip blog. Fails WP:RS

whosdatedwho.com and famouswhy.com are similar gossip sites which simply package and pass on content from sources that generally fail WP:RS. Check out the "partners" list for whosdatedwho, I don't think there's a single RS there. Famouswhy, in addition, styles itself a provider of "shocking" news, which should be taken as a warning sign.

I edited out all the "significant others" where all the sources for the relationship were unreliable. WP:BLP requires very sound sourcing for biographical claims, and these don't really relate strongly to Delany's notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hullaballoo! I didn't know about those sources being unreliable and will watch out for them in the future and won't include them. I wrote down the bad sources and I'll try to avoid them in the future. It would be really cool if there was some kind of "source meter" so I could type in a source and see what Wikipedia thinks about it. In fact, while researching the Dana Delany article, I couldn't find anything substantive to show a link between Dana and Don Henley of the Eagles. I'm wondering if I could rewrite the line to just say something like "Dana has reportedly had a number of relationships with prominent men" but not list any names -- do you think this would be better? Plus, I'm wondering about possibly changing the organization of the article around rather substantially, but I want to seek the advice from others before doing anything major. Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Oh, here is what I'm thinking about how to reorganize the Dana Delany article which I haven't done yet, but am asking your advice about:Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I think the article is getting much better, the information is solid with excellent references, but the subcategories are somewhat off. There's a section called "Voice work" which interrupts the early career and later career stuff (but I agree with editors who think Dana's voice work is important and should be emphasized, although I don't think it should be included as a major section, but rather mixed into the chronological sections). But it's like the format switches gears mid-stream (sorry about mixing metaphors) from chronology to type of work (ie voice), and I hope we could get something which is more logically consistent, as well as helping readers find information that they need quickly. And I think all of it could be better organized somehow. I think most biographies have a chronological format, from early to current, and this is the best choice. I'm wondering: what categories can we have which keeps the chronological format while emphasizing the voice work? I've been researching this actress for some time now and my sense is that she's not a lightweight pretty face type actress but a serious, intense heavy-duty one who can master tough roles, a powerhouse who loves acting but sometimes gets snared in frivolous projects, and the consistent thing about her career is: a love of acting. That's what she loves. And I don't think things like friendships or causes should have their own section but rather should be included in the chronology when they're relevant and appropriate. But here's my sense of her career goes something like this -- Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I. early life (birth, schooling) II. New York City -- breaking into the business

 Soap operas
 Broadway (critical reviews)
 Off-Broadway (critical attention)
 Key friendships and connections (Christopher Reeve, for example)

III. Early Hollywood years (TV guest starring spots, China Beach) -- establishing herself as a major actress

 TV guest starring spots (showcasing her talent)
 China Beach (should include: how did she get this role? should get its own paragraph I think, mentioning Emmys plus critical attention)
 Movies
 TV movies
 Voice work (The Batman/Superman, Lois Lane, fan reactions, critical acclaim -- Why Dana = major voice talent)

IV. Later Hollywood years -- pursuing acting

 More TV work (sitcoms that didn't get off the ground, critical reviews, etc)
 Other projects (narrating, Vietnam nurses, audio books)
 Guest spots on talk shows
 Dana-as-a-celebrity (being a presenter in awards shows, talk show appearances, interactions with fans)
 Causes (scleroderma, other causes)

V. Filmography VI. Awards VII. Notable achievements VIII. References

So, Hullabaloo, do you like this organizational scheme? I'm wondering what you think? I'm interested in getting feedback from excellent wikipedia editors such as yourself.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Your recent warning on User talk:Liverpoolshoes

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'd like to remind you to add your signature after any talk page posts or warnings so we know who you are ;-). Thanks. - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cassidy Cruise

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cassidy Cruise. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassidy Cruise. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"See also" section at Fight Club

Hi there. I noted your comments in the edit summary for your removal of the entries from that section; to clarify, the discussion was not primarily about using Allmovie in the way that Erik implemented at Fight Club, but one over its suitability as an external link. The discussion petered out with no real conclusion—with no support, but also no consensus objection to such a use. I invite you to participate at Talk:Fight Club (film)#"See also" section, where your thoughts on Erik's intended use of the section would be appreciated. All the best, Steve ^T • C 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ilona Staller

I agree that Chicapedia is not a reliable source. I intend to delete all reference to it except where in one case where it reinforces another reference. Please let me finish editting before you begin. Thanks

International Museum of Women not a reliable source? Belfaast Telegraph? Even In-Out Star website clearly did fact checking on their article. I've improved the quality of this article, including citing everything, yet you continue to automatically revert, adding back drivel like "she lost her virginity at sixteen". Please look more in depth before you turn back improvements. 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca Scott

Hi, could you please explain to me why you removed my Rebecca Scott reference? How is this unreliable? It seems pretty reliable to me. Thanks! Asc85 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.stlouis-strippers.com/ doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and in particular doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLP. It's a self-published source and isn't very different, for Wikipedia sourcing purposes, from a blog. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Encounter (2nd nomination)

Excellent detective work there. —Sean Whitton / 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And again - fantastic. —Sean Whitton / 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Redped

I am very sorry, for deleting things from Sophie Abelson, David Sturzaker & Michelle Lukes.

Redped

xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redped (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Roxy Panther

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Roxy Panther has been removed. It was removed by Chuthya with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 304803778 by KevinOKeeffe (talk) asserts notability)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Chuthya before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

re: SDPatrolBot

Hmmm, that was added (making it notify the first user to tag) per suggestions at the BRfA. It's to avoid warning a vandalism reverter (say, a user tags the article, another user blanks (removing the PROD) ClueBot reverts (restoring the PROD), another user removes the PROD, ClueBot gets notified. Not that that's important, just my little defence ;). Anyway, I'll look into a way to get around this (possible using the date the PROD was added, or something similar). Thanks for letting me know :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I know how I'll do it; I'll just check if the edit was revert or not. Problem should be solved some time tomorrow (before the next PROD run) :). Cheers - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your advice about the Gerald Celente article

Hi excellent Hullaballoo. Wondering if you'd advise me about an article. Many users feel the Gerald Celente article is a lopsided, one-way advertising piece for Celente, a gloom-and-doom forecaster and business consultant, talking head. Most "references" in the existing article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I spent a day researching the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly (2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain), and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I expect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the wikipedia article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's always making gloom-and-doom predictions (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I rewrote much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. And I posted my re-edit. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". (I did have comments on the talk page from earlier, but they were ignored). I'm wondering what to do here. Do you have any advice? I've posted comments on the reverting editor's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

While I agree that your revision of the article was an improvement, I think it came across (not unlike the original) as presenting too much original research. Because it both presented and evaluated Celente's track record, rather than using third-party sources to do the evaluation, it had serious sourcing problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow good original research, although a lot of it slips through on first review. (That's one of the difficulties in dealing with articles about crackpots; they tend to be ignored by reliable sources rather than refuted by them.) I've taken a healthy chunk of the inappropriate material out of the article this morning, but a great deal remains. I'll take another look at your version when I have more time, to see which parts can be salvaged. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reworked it too, adding stuff back in, and I hope you like the effort as it stands now (10:30pm Tuesday Aug 4 eastern US time). Not quite sure what you're getting at in talking about "original research", but I'll read over the original-research link (tomorrow) and try to make sense of it. I agree third-party sources doing the evaluating is best -- and all we do is report what the third-party evaluating source says. But suppose I find that there are, say, numerous appearances of Celente on talk radio and TV shows. But no third-party source SAYS that Celente has "appeared on numerous shows". Then, I'm not allowed to state what, to me, is obvious? Like, Celente appeared on numerous shows. I have references to these shows. Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I think if we adhere to policy too strictly, we won't be able to say what's obvious, or tell the truth, that is, I don't think any encyclopedia article will be able to say much of anything, because there's so much interpretation involved in any kind of thought process. But I'll try harder to get at what you're saying. But I definitely see your point about crackpots. I don't think Celente is a true crackpot, but uses outlandish statements to get media attention (and help reporters sell papers) but his business consulting is much more mild. But you're right -- respectable outlets tend to ignore him. I still don't think it's "original research" for me to examine predictions he's made, and conclude that predictions about the economy tend to be dire and overly pessimistic (they are) while his predictions about specific business patterns (the DIY market) are more mild. I have references to both instances in which economic prediction X is dire, business prediction Y is more reasonable. There are references. So am I editorializing? Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I read carefully over the "no original research" policy and I'm seeing what you're saying. And this policy is agreeable and sensible. What was especially informative was the example of how two facts, each referenced, could be used together to be "original research" and I'll watch for this in the future. Remember that the current Gerald Celente article has stuff in it that didn't originate from me -- and it looks like original research -- but I'll watch for it regarding myself. It's a smart policy, overall. The only area where I disagree with Wikipedia's policy is about excluding the "tiny minority" view -- I think in some cases these should be included, but labeled as such, and given very little weight (since they're held by VERY few people). Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

RE: comments at Worlds of Ultima AFD

you may be interested in this current conversation Ikip (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in one of the dispute resolution forums. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do intend to do that, but the user posted that he's signed off for the night, and I want to cool off a little more to avoid posting something inflammatory. Is that OK, as a rule? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're required to advise them when you open the WQA filing. All you have to do is say "Due to our recent issue, I have started a discussion at WP:WQA. I hope you'll provide input, thanks" ... or you can use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} if you wish. See, it's nice and friendly. I do hope you have read the ongoing discussion at WQA since. You are also required to try and resolve the issue directly with the other editor before taking it to WQA, by the way. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This edit: [21] is unacceptable. You are, in my view, personalising this debate too much. Please don't do that sort of thing again. It may be helpful to review WP:COOL, because as BWilkins has pointed out, you're not working amicably to resolve the dispute you started, you're engaged in a series of moves that (in my view) are more escalatory than they are conciliatory. Please try to edit more collegially and in the spirit of working together and seeking consensus instead of editing so confrontationally. Even if you think that in your view the other party or parties is/are being confrontational. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuttee

Sorry about causing the extra work there. Must have copied over the same template twice and didn't notice. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  – iridescent 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait...

... you don't think Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano could compete for the same role??? Gotta admit, that one was pretty amusing... (which role, by the way?) Nice to meet you. Tvoz/talk 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination)

Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

While I agree with the substance of what you say, please could you consider toning down some of the more extreme phrases?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the "tantrum" point, which reflects not only the nominator's behaviour at AFD but also his comments like these [22] elsewhere. I think it's important to make clear to the nominator that even people who share his unhappiness over the way the 2d closure occurred [23] find his current response beyond the pale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. I just think it's possible to say it in a more collegial manner, that's all.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving suggestion

Hey, just a quick note...your User talkpage comes up with a size warning for being too big. Have you thought of archiving it in order to reduce it? Have a look at the source code from my my talkpage on setting it up, or feel free to ask! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo fix.

Thanks. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Meggan Mallone

Hi. Regarding your edit here, I just wondered why you feel this source is unacceptable, as XBiz always indicate whenever their articles are a press release, such as here. Maybe your views could be incorporated into the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#External links. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it before seeing this comment. XBIZ is very careful about not taking ownership of press releases unless their staff checks everything out. Second, Meggan Mallone was a mainstream model in high school. Mainstream as in non-porn, not mainstream as in famous or popular. If there truly is an issue about mainstream being misleading (as ip addresses have seemed to dispute), it can be restated to simply fashion model or commercial model. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Skinner article

Every reference source I added to the Hank Skinner article points to either an actual court document from the case, or an article in a legitimate newspaper. Where possible, I also added a link to the same court document or article at the Hank Skinner advocacy site. Both sides have referenced material to support their edits, often from the same document. The article is hardly "poorly referenced. Where claims are unsupported, citation needed tags have been added. It's not like the article has been in a constant state of flux. The people who made those claims should have an opportunity to provide whatever sourcing material they have. As for my edits, I stand by them 100%. grifterlake (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is very poorly referenced; many of the major claims are unsourced or cited to documents that do not actually support the claims. Much of the material you insist on adding back reflects your analysis of primary source documents, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy against original research. The article also includes various completely unsourced allegations against persons living and dead, violating in some cases WP:BLP. Your version of the article, as other editors have noted, is essentially an advocacy piece on behalf of the prisoner, which violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. And your repeated unfounded accusations of vandalism violate Wikipedia policies prohibiting personal attacks and requiring civility. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the applicable policies and conform to them, to avoid the loss of editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. By merely tossing out the phrase and not backing it up with specific instances your complaint has no merit. First, since most of the documents are official court documents, the claims of both sides will most likely call upon the same documents for support, especially when it comes to testimony. The material I "added back" - actually restored after your vandalism, is not "my analysis", but the position of the prosecution and *supported* by the primary sources, which I might add again are for the most part public documents intended to document the adjudication of this case. If you look at the dates from the discussion page (or actually used the discussion page prior to resorting to vandalism) you will notice that the article was called an advocacy piece *before* I made my first edits. My edits reversed that tilt. If you include the "citation needed" tags I added to the claims tending toward innocence the article now clearly tilts against the advocacy position. In checking the dates on the history page you would have seen that many of the people who created the first drafts of the article are just now returning to the article after a year or more and have started in a serious manner to respond the new edits. As for "unfounded accusations of vandalism", I stand by that statement. If you were serious about editing that article you would have brought up your specific concerns, line by line if necessary on the discussion page, made public your suggestions for specific edits and allowed people to respond. You didn't do that. By your own words on your user page you blew in here after a long absence and reduced a 2000 word article to a blurb without so much as a heads up to those who have worked on it for the last several years. Can you do that? Sure. That's how Wikipedia works. But it works the same way on both sides of the street. The others and myself can change it back as easily as you can vandalize it. If you report me I need only to point to the chronological history of the edits, the discussion page of the article, myself and here. As it stands now, there is no way for someone to know which source you think is poorly sourced. The only "clue" is your cryptic line in the edit justification fields about poorly sourced claims. Even when your changes have been reversed you bring them back without further justification. So if you are serious about making that article better, join the process and work with the people who created it and changed it. What you did *is* vandalism, as evidenced by the way you went about it. grifterlake (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clear from your comments that you haven't reviewed any of the applicable policies; no BLP with so many "citation needed" tags and unsourced comments, often accusations, regarding third parties, can fairly be described as anything but poorly sourced. Your accusations of vandalism towards me and other editors are unfounded, uncivil nonsense. You also have provided no justification for your deletion of the only information and referencing supporting any claim that the article subject is notable; unfortunately, domestic abuse killings are common and do not confer notability on their perpretrators (most of whom continue to assert their innocence file extend appeals in similarly nonnotable fashion). Further comments included incivility, personal attacks, or complete failure to address the relevant WP policy issues will be deleted from this page without any other response. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rita Jenrette

To describe the Jenrette's sexual escapades as merely "events that transpired during their marriage" is ludicrously bland. Avoiding libel doesn't need to sound like a legal brief. In version you reverted was far more modest than the saucy stories she's written about herself. 02:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you find the standing text (which I didn't write) "bland" doesn't give you any justification for inserting unsourced commentary reflecting your subjective characterizations into the article. WP:RS, WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Two editors?

You premised your revert on two editors having objected to the material. They have not. Because it therefore rests on an erroneous premise, you should rescind your reversion immediately.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Morbidthoughts deleted the same material yesterday [24], citing WP:PRIMARY in his edit summary. I'm not interesting in parsing his edit summary; he objected to the material, I object to the material, and that's enough to demonstrate that two editors objected to the material. So if anyone needs to "rescind" anything, it's you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Comments

When you said that I hadn't left this user alone, I took that as a personal attack, because I have not done anything outside of Wikipedia policy. Frankly I did not target this user in any way, but merely did what I felt was necessary as an editor. When you looked through my edit history and publicized spelling mistakes that I made, I took it as a personal attack, because it really had no bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't expect people to be perfect and I expect that I too will make mistakes. What I don't expect is to have somebody attempt to embarrass me by pulling it out in a public forum. According to WP:PA, personal attacks are comments on contributors rather than content. Due to the fact that you commented on my occupation and edit history, I took this as an attack. I realize that this may not have been your intent, but it is how it came across. I was not calling your challenging my edits a personal attack. In fact you were correct that the article was not identical, which I did not notice when I typed that comment. I did notice it before the second time I created the redirect, and felt that it wasn't fundamentally different in terms of content determining notability. If you notice, the second conversion to a redirect happened three days after the article was recreated. So yes, I do feel that I afforded him time to improve the article before converting it back to a redirect. If you read the talk page, the editor didn't respond to anything that I had written, but rather just restated his point and undid my revision. My reason for tagging for speedy deletion was to get an administrator's opinion on the whole matter. I don't like edit wars, and I didn't want to be engaged in one. If the speedy was declined I would have left it be and tried to find sources. Which I actually did try to do before I converted to a redirect the first time and the second time. Sources such as [25] [26] & [27], which were all top listings on google, had some information, but either just connected him to HP Lovecraft or gave information that really didn't make him notable. For example, my great-great grandfather was considered a master plumber in his time. He was considered the top in his field in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings there. The info I have on him reads very similar to Whipple Van Buren Phillips. Does my ancestor merit an article any less because he's not related to anyone famous? My honest feeling is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion as the article stands. I listed it at AFD to form consensus. I stated my opinion, and that's exactly what it is, an opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with me, and in fact I don't expect you to. What I am asking is that you understand where I'm coming from on this, and realize this is not something I did out of the blue to cause problems for another editor, but rather something I felt should be done based on my own research and experience. HarlandQPitt (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Network television schedules

Hi Hull,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Choice of word for Aubrey O'Day plastic surgery and dating Sean Combs rumors

Hello, Hullaballoo. The reason the word "denied" was not used to get the point across that she says these rumors are incorrect is because "deny/denied" falls into the Wikipedia: Words to avoid category in this case. I have to state that it does make it sound as though she is lying. Whether we believe whatever she denies in this case to be a lie or not is beside the point, of course. If you have any other suggestions for a word to replace "refuted" (instead of "denied"), I am definitely up to listening to what you have to say about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Refuted" is definitely the wrong word to use here. "Refuted" is conclusory; it implies that she proved the rumors false. I think you're relying on the wrong part of WP:AVOID here. The word "denied," per the guideline, is to be avoided in the context of criminal charges of similar accusations of serious misconduct. It is acceptable "in situations involving unproved or disproved ideas and fringe theories, in which the words are used not to presume guilt, but to note that an assertion is known to be incorrect or without consensus." None of the matters involved here amount to allegations of criminal behavior (or even of misconduct of any sort); indeed, rumors seem to fit neatly into the category of "unproved or disproved ideas" where saying "denied" is specifically recognized as appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what "refuted" means; it can also mean the same thing as "denied" but without as much implication of "lying." The word "denied" should not only be avoided in the context of criminal charges in serious accusations of serious misconduct. I have witnessed several GA and FA articles avoid the word "denied" where it can give the impression that the person is lying. The word "denied" should generally be avoided, as the guideline states, because it can give the impression that the person is hiding something or is lying. It may be used where uncontroversial, sure, but I am not seeing how the implication that O'Day had plastic surgery or dated Sean Combs is uncontroversial; they are very rampant rumors, which have been known to upset some O'Day fans...while being accepted as fact by other O'Day fans and some people in general. It has been a hotly debated topic for some time. I suggest the word "dispelled" in place of "refuted" and "denied'...unless you feel that "dispelled" necessarily means that she made thoughts about the rumors being true vanish for good. Flyer22 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Caleb Followill

why did you delete my stuff that I wrote under influences? it was properly sourced and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumdrumdrummer (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it wasn't properly sourced; you linked to the wrong page, which standing alone wouldn't be a big deal. Second, what you wrote doesn't line up well with what the article said. (EG, "Soft" is very clearly not a song about "going bald"; it's a song about male sexual performance failure, and Followill says so rather plainly.) Third, much of the paragraph involved is not descriptive of what Followill said, but your interpretation of it and commentary on the album -- which, under Wikipedia guidelines, original research (OR), and to the extent it reflects on Followill not appropriate in the biography of a living person (BLP). The sentence beginning "His lyrics often appear nonsensical" is clearly personal opinion, even if a mainstream view; if a claim like that is included at all, it should be sourced to a review or critical piece, preferably in a major publication. Fourth, an "Influences" section in a musician's article is normally about musical and lyrical influences, not about the artist's psyche.

The material you're trying to work up would fit better in the "personal life" section, or perhaps in the album-specific article. I'd suggest posting a new draft on the talk page of either article and asking for comments; if you leave me a note when you do this I'll try to leave my comments quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone of edit summary

Please assume good faith. Edit summary comments like "fake support for notability!" on Co-Ed Fever (film) do not support that assumption. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, your edit summaries like "dealing with deletionism" show the same lack of good faith you criticize me for. Second, you're an experienced and competent editor, and you should not have created links in the "Co-Ed fever article to various people who clearly did not appear in the film, including the guy who died in the 17th century, as well as twice adding the name of the mainstream actress who did not appear in the film (although an nn porn actress with a similar name did). Third, you added what is essentially a spamlink to a retailer/VOD site to the external links section, and added a paraphrase of promotional copy from that site to the body of the article, without referencing its source. If you don't want your edits to be criticized, don't make such glaring errors which give the impression of promotional intent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism is not a pejorative; it's a philosophical position. I like the alliteration and assonance of using "dealing" with that term. I don't mind being criticized for errors, though it's generally better to correct them quietly (with simple explanations if warranted). Once again, I encourage you to stop ascribing intent (especially bad-faith intent) to other editors. I have no interest in this particular film other than to prevent its article from being deleted. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments clearly come across as pejorative, and your failure to seriously address the relevant article's failure to meet the GNG is conspicuous. None of the claims you added verifiably support notability under WP:NOTFILM, and you show much more interest in haranguing me than in legitimate debate. You have repeatedly implied that I hold a "philosophical position" that bears no resemblance to my intentions, and isn't reflected by my editing history, and that is nothing more than the sort of "ascribing intent" you condemn. I'm not interested in any further personalized discussion with an editor who applies different standards to other editors than she does to herself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from leaving vandal warnings on an editor's page when there was no vandalism to begin with. So, this warning seems kind of redundent, doesn't it.

Having said that, I left a perfectly viable explanation in the edit summary when I originally removed the deletion notice. Did you even bother to look at the deletion header before reverting my edit and leaving me the unnecessary message? Please read the result of the fifth nomination. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not leave anything resembling a "viable explanation." You removed a deletion notice before the AFD had run its course. You did not close, or attempt to close, the AFD, or participate in the AFD, and your action did not reflect the consensus of the AFD. Nor did it reflect the consensus of the prior AFD; the one-year hiatus was a suggestion made by one editor, not accepted by anyone else, in particular the closing admin. (Even if that was the past consensus, consensus can change.) If you're going to misrepresent the outcome of a prior process, and ignore the process for handling a current dispute, your edits will be indistinguishable from, and treated as, vandalism -- as 99+% of the removal of deletion notices without proper closure of AFD discussions are vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You can call it vandalism if it makes you feel better. Any further comments from you on my talk page will be struck through and duly ignored. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD template removal on Ashida Kim

I think the removal was more an expression of Ghostexorcist's frustration with the repeated nomination then vandalism. --Nate^t/_c 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like your advice

When you have time, can we please collaborate on how to make the Masiela Lusha page polished and presentable? As of now, Wiki is still citing a need for polishing and fixing -- more so with your re-editing.

I admire your eye on precision, and I feel I have a lot to offer as well, while supporting it with legitimate article links, etc.

I don't intend to "spam" or include bogus links, but I could use some help to make both your job and my job a little easier.

Thank you in advance,

Aaron W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronweinhaus (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mandingo (porn star)

I don't have the patience to get into a revision war with you, but Mandingo's penis size, though poorly sourced, is widely known and central to his fame. Your repeated attempts to remove it are particularly obnoxious given your refusal to participate in the Discussion page. I specifically started a topic related to the subject on the talk page; your summaries in your edit notes aren't cutting it. Reyemile (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Two New castmembers SNL

Hi Hullabaloo,

How are you? I just wanted to let you know that even if this rumour started up on a certain blog, the rumour of the new castmembers has popped up on TV Guide.com http://www.tvguide.com/News/SNL-New-Cast-1009401.aspx as well as some other mainstream sites. Now I know they reference the original blog, but I just wanted to make you aware of the new sites featuring the news. I don't know what to make of it though. Guess we'll have to wait for the premiere! Thanks 70.29.242.22 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) samusek2

Thanks very much for finding this; it wasn't in any of the news searches I did when I requested semi-protection. Since TV Guide, a reliable source, says it's conformed the story, it's definitely good to go. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like your opinion regarding inclusion of rumored future events. Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources for a discussion on the topic. I used the SNL article and the rumored new cast members as an example. One editor suggested removing the rumor with an explanation. However, removig this kind of rumor would probably just start an add/delete sequence as some people may reasonably conclude a confirmed rumor by a reputable news source is the same as a fact. Noting the casting as a rumor until NBC confirms the casting makes more sense to me. What do you think?Sandcherry (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you. NW (Talk) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I have denied the accusation at the page specified in the notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you weren't aware, you are accused of sockpuppetry here. Mike R (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Bush

You removed relevant and sourced material, with the rationale that the information or sources (or both) are too gossipy. I point out that The CW interview, whether a video or not, is a reliable source. E! news is also a reliable source, whether gossipy or not. How is it better to remove information about James Lafferty having dated Sophia Bush simply because you find it "too gossipy"? Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I am not against your other edits and removal of material from this article, and I left those edits intact. It is just the removal of Lafferty and Bush having dated that I objected to, which is why I reinstated it. It is not simply speculation. It was difficult for Chad Michael Murray and Bush to be on set together not only initially because they were previously married...but also because she was now dating one of his co-stars; his speaking out about this is what is in the article. Yes, he was the one to confirm the romance between those two, but I doubt he was lying, and those two have not denied it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenrette

I wouldn't care to argue with Sainty on genealogy - the guy knows what he's talking about. It may not technically meet the standards of a reliable source, but I would bet money that the information about the Boncompagni on his website is accurate. (I'm familiar with him because I used to read and occasionally post on alt.talk.royalty, where he was a regular. The guy has idiosyncratic opinions on some subjects, but he knows his shit). At any rate, we see here, at Leo van de Pas' genealogy site the entry on Prince Nicolo Boncompagni-Ludovisi, presumably the gentleman in question. Van de Pas's site is obviously self-published, but is generally pretty reliable, and most importantly, he lists his sources. Van de Pas provides the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and The Royal House of Stuart as his sources - those are both reliable sources on royal genealogy which ought to be discoverable in many research libraries. We should try to check them out ourselves, if we can, but I would be very surprised if they turned out to say anything different from Van de Pas' or Sainty's sites. The man's existence, descent from the reigning houses of Piombino, and so forth, seem to be easily discoverable. The marriage to Jenrette should also be sourced, though. I can understand that people doing obnoxious self-promotion on their own Wikipedia article is very annoying, and wish you luck in combatting such silliness, but I think this particular battle is an unnecessary one. john k (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think we're pretty much in agreement; there's a sourcing problem related to the marriage, we just have different views as to how to describe the problem. Where I come from is -- There certainly is a head of the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family out there, and Rita Jenrette has married someone who she claims to be that family patriarch (or whatever the term is). I think that, for BLP purposes, we ought to have a reliable source documenting that the husband is who she says he is. All we need is one decent press report, one reputable magazine story, one TV clip, whatever. I don't understand why that's proved to be so difficult. If any of my responses to you have come across as excessively cranky, I'll apologize; after repeated snarky comments from Jenrette and her friends I've become thin-skinned. (Long before the current dispute, I'd scrubbed Jenrette's article of some really unfair stuff, like the categorization of her as an "adult model" in the company of various pornstars and sexploitation film actresses, to little thanks.) And I suspect the Anne Hathaway-boyfriend debacle is in the back of my mind as well. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is this, which appears to be a perfume-related webzine. My basic problem here is that we seem to be using the reliable sources rule to exclude information that common sense tells us is almost certainly true - we have ("non-reliable," but cited to reliable sources) genealogical sources that tell us of Prince Nicolò Boncompagni-Ludovisi and his descent from the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family that ruled Piombino in the eighteenth century; we have a (probably "non-reliable," but hard to see a reason to think it would be inaccurate) perfume industry blog that shows a photograph of a gentleman of the same name with Jenrette, describes him as a prince, and talks about how he revived some ancient perfume recipe for his wife; and we have the ("non-reliable") personal website of Ms. Jenrette talking about her marriage to the guy. Maybe none of this meets Wikipedia's reliable sources/BLP standards, but simply as a person looking at what evidence is available, the truth here seems pretty obvious. BLP policy is designed to protect the privacy of living subjects of articles and not expose ourselves to libel suits. Using the BLP policy to refuse to say what we think is probably true, and instead insist on an equally unsourced version which pisses off the LP in question seems like an odd way to apply the policy. What, in the version you reverted, did you specifically object to? Calling the guy a prince? Saying that he's descended from the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family of Piombino? The latter is almost certainly true, and could be confirmed by looking at the genealogy sites I referenced above. If you want to remove all reference to the Piombino business at all, that might be reasonable, at least until we can confirm it, but I don't see how saying that he "claims" to be descended from the family is anything but a weasel word to imply that he is lying. john k (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Hi there. I have sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Angelo Moore

Hello, How do we stop people from changing his page? I know that it can be done. Angelo is getting very upset seeing the page change every other month, he wants to be the one with the updates on his life. So please stop making changes.

Many Thanks,

Susette Ashley Garrett/aka Mrs. Angelo Moore

(Trubarbie (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

The blunt general answer is that article subjects can't control the content of the relevant articles, and clearly can't insist on including unsourced content mentioning other, private, people by name. The blunt question arising out of this post and your editing is why do you identify yourself as Mrs Moore here, but insist on inserting statements into the article that you are divorced from Mr. Moore, and that he is "dating" someone else. If you or the subject have serious complaints about the correctness of statements in the article, you should familiarize yourself with WP:OTRS and follow the procedure suggested there. If you or he want certain conent added to the article, you should become familiar with WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the backup help on articles such as Aubrey O'Day and Sophia Bush. I know that you did not decide to watch these articles just to help me out per say, but to rather keep them clean, but the additional help is appreciated. These vandals and other unhelpful or unsourced (or both types of) additions wear me down. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So you want to delete the article about actors considered for the role of Batman

If you really, really have a problem with this Batman list, then I suppose that the same can be said about the one about James Bond: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_actors_considered_for_the_James_Bond_character

TMC1982 (talk) 11:48 p.m., 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Angelo Moore

This is the second email to you about Angelo Moore. Please stop removing the information on his page. I read the Biographies of living person page and the things on his page are relevant and verifiable. He asked for those things to be on his page, due to the fact that many of his songs have to do with marriage, his child, and what makes him him. His fans know him for those things. So that would make the things you continue to delete important to the article. Angelo checked his page because someone stated that the information had been removed once again by you. My next step is to report this to the Biographies of living persons notice board if you do not stop. Yes, I am his ex-spouse that is working with him and his management company to make sure inforamtion about him is correct. I check with Angelo before anything goes up or comes down from his page. If need be I will have Mr. Moore contact wikipedia himself in the event this email is not enough for you to stop making edits to his page.

Many Thanks,

Susette Ashley Garrett- Moore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trubarbie (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Read my answer to your first post. The article subject does not control the contents of the article, and no one -- not the subject, not the subject's spouse, not the subject's ex-spouse, not Jimbo Wales -- is allowed to introduce completely unsourced claims about the personal life details of living persons, especially otherwise private persons. If the information has been published in reliable, independent third-party sources, it may be included in the article with appropriate references. But not just on an editor's say-so. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Douay Martyrs

Hello there! Couldn't help but notice the edit you made to this artical. Hate to seem rude, but I had just re-edited that particular bit back in after an unregistered user deleted it without comment! I'm not as experienced with wiki as yourself. I'm curious why the edit was counted as cleanup? Many thanks :) OutrageousBenedict (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Proposed_clarification

FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Harris

FYI, WeKinglyPigs.com has been used for a few years now for info on Playboy Playmates. Most of the information comes directly from the issues of the magazine themselves. The woman who runs the site works in the library at the University of Chicago. See WP:P* under the useful links section. Dismas|^(talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not remove plot summary

You removed it again with no discussion in the talk page. But you did have a one line edit summary. Removing it entirely is wrong. I will work on it to address your concerns. Specifically, I will remove most of the description like a man's cock in her vagina doggie style, and the like. One scene won an award so some detail is necessary but will be done tastefully. G314X (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I know you?

Hello HB. Just wanted to ask if you used to use this same name 'Hullaballoo' to post on the discussion forums in tennis.com a while back. I was a poster there too but have not posted in a long long while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.229.211 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not me, sorry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dimitri The Lover

First off HB, thanks for monitoring the very controversial Wikipedia entry for Dimitri The Lover. My name is Shawn and I am his Manager. Please note that when I beefed up Dimitri's entry with additional information, I was fair and DID NOT remove anything that was derogatory, even though much of it is inflammatory and borderline defamatory. I only removed gross innacuracies and reworded misleading sentences. I have provided references for all additions. I may do a bit more rewording for grammar and sentence structure (I'm a real stickler for that) and may also add in more content. My IP Address is static and if you see anything from it please know that it is me. Also, I sometimes use internet cafes, so if any other edits that seem reasonable are made from other IP's and I have noted them to be made by myself, then please provide lattitude. You can see that I have undone some vandalism in the past. I would appreciate you helping us keep a keen eye on this most controversial BLP to ensure no further vandalism. We are in the post-production phase of a Hollywood documentary about Dimitri The Lover, word is slowly leaking out about the "voicemails" being, let's just say, not what they seem, and expect a lot of traffic to this Wikipedia entry. If you need to get in touch with me personally, please go to www.dimitrithelover.com and use our contact, noting that it is for me. I prefer not giving out my direct email here. Thanks once again for being vigilant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Noel Ashman's page

Hi,

I am quite new to editing on wikipedia but I know and understand how to cite references. I would like to understand why you keep removing the content thats been put up in the past. Especially when a lot of it has to do with movies
that he has been a part of that are plainly referenced on imdb.com. If you consider that site not to be reputable then please let me know of a better site than that one because I can't think of any other. Other major hollywood personalities
have used imdb.com for sourcing. It is wasting my time and yours to keep taking it down and putting it up again. Julietamyor

Julietamyor (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rascal Flatts

The CMT and Rolling Stone listings are only directories. I haven't found anything on CMT or Lyric Street that even announced the release of this album; albums by notable acts aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out those easy-to-find pages in commenting on your earlier claims that the album was a blatant hoax. It doesn't given one much confidence in the other search results you report. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deanna Brooks

Ok, I'm going to try and do what Wiki says, talk this through and assume good faith on everyone’s part. This picture is NOT Deanna Brooks. I've known of Deanna Brooks for years, I've exchanged emails with her, I'm a friend on hers on Myspace and Facebook and I can tell you with absolute certainty...the picture is NOT her. I contacted the person who posted it and told him the exact same thing I'm telling you. You can check out her official website, her Myspace page, her Facebook page, her Twitter page, her IMDB entry or just Google her. The women in this picture is very tanned, Deanna Brooks is fair skinned, always has been, the women pictured has breast implants, Deanna Brooks does not. What is the purpose of constantly adding a photo which is NOT her, why continue to make her entry so glaringly inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, whoever you are, given that photos of the same model wearing the same clothing at the same event are available on multiple websites, credited to a different photographer, all identified as Deanna Brooks, the identification given by the photographer who's supplied many images to Wikipedia without apparent controversy sure appears to be reliable. Women in her line of work refurbish themselves rather frequently. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:71.235.38.171 - Schrandit (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ernie Anastos

Thanks; I'm at 3RR! Looks like you're going to have to find yourself a partner soon...maybe User:Tide rolls is around. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

List of nudity in music videos

Hello! Fixed the article, added a source to confirm my edits. Cheers!

Greg Fitzsimmons

Some of your edits are being discussed here: [28] I thought I should alert you just in case you didn't see them on your own so that you would have an opportunity to respond as well. Hope all is well! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDb references

Is the IMDb reference in this article - Three-Five-Zero-Zero - acceptable IYHO? Thanks 75.182.113.84 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if it's acceptable, whih I greatly doubt, a Google Book search turns up more appropriate sources [29]. This might also be helpful [30]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How about here: Jerry_Springer:_The_Opera? 75.182.113.84 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Here the imdb page isn't used as a reference, just as an external link. But it looks really dubious to me, since it appears to be user-submitted original research and opinion. There should be much better sources out there for anything that might be referenced to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And here: Three Mile Island (ref 15)? 75.182.113.84 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Here? Escape to Witch Mountain (1975 film) 75.182.113.84 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Noel Ashman's Page

Hi, I was following up on the message I left a few days ago and still did not see a detailed response to it. I would really like to fix the page so that it is acceptable by Wikipedia standards and would really appreciate some detailed feedback. Thank you for your time.

Julietamyor

Ref update

Thanks for the improved reference on Clint Catalyst! As a result, I spent some more time working on the paragraph (for example, I noticed Darren Stein's name was misspelled). I see you're pretty much a Wiki black-belt, so I hope you think I've done a good job. Thanks again for looking out for me! Feather Jonah (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Rosen

I noticed you removed alot of content from Ruth Rosen, perhaps an AfD is in order? abc518 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the article subject is notable; but it's hard to get someone familiar with the field to work on the article when Rosen herself comes in regularly, wipes out the text, and pastes in a promotional (auto)biography. Needs time for things to settle down. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. abc518 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cytherea (person)

I don not understand why we can not use her real name. Several porn actresses have their real names in the articles, like Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress). It was even sourced. Glumpbaar (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, birthnames/real names for pornographic performers must be reliably sourced, and neither IMDB nor retailer/VOD sites are considered reliable sources. See, for example, the comments from Wikiproject:Pornography. Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress) is something of a special case; she claims to be performing under her real name, so any claims that she isn't are subject to WP:BLP, and there is a strong argument that she'd have been sued into the ground by that well-known supermodel if there's any doubt about it. I don't know how to resolve this case, so I've left it alone. In general, these real name IDs are usually sourced to mainstream news sources, because the issue is sensitive. See Crystal Gunns, for example, or Racquel Darrian. (And while looking for examples of good cites, I found and removed another IMDB-only citation, there's still cleanup left to do.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Leah Hackett

How does who she previously dated hold no encyclopedic significance? I've seen plenty of GAs. It's not gossip either as it's clearly sourced. I'd also like to remind you of the 3RR rule. --Jimbo^[online] 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nina Carter

Hi, I'd appreciate you leaving the information about Nina Carter's cameo in American Werewolf in London in her article. The information is accurate, it's not contentious, it's not BLP and you keep removing it without leaving notes. If you refuse to desist, I would at least like your guidance on how we can arrive at a mutually acceptable scenario, rather than the unilateral removal of accurate information? Much obliged! 17.22 28 Sep 09 (BST)

Unsourced, speculative "information" isn't allowed in a WP:BLP. Unreferenced quotations generally aren't allowed at all. There's never been an explanation as to how/why details about a film cameo bear on her real life, especially since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer. When multiple experienced editors repeatedly remove the same content with the same explanation ("unsourced"), that should be a signal that the content shouldn't be added back without reliable sourcing.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point: 'since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer'. I have got a single clue what you're alluding to here. However, there's no explanantion as to how why details about a film cameo bear on Ms Carter's life. It is relevant to her career though, and accurate, and her cameo is now mentioned solely as being in the film, without the copy that seems to so aggrieve your sensibilities. Your style of editing seems to others to be overly fussy but I'm hoping that the current article meets with your exacting standards.

Please leave it alone now. Thanks. 20:24 BST 28/9/09

Why did you not provide a proper reference rather than argue and edit war with him over this? The burden of verifying information is on the person who adds any information. If anything is so accurate and relevant, it would be reported by third party reliable sources. I easily found a reference using google books. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the information. 22.24 BST 28/9/09.

What do you call these edits by your ip address? [31][32] Even if you are not the original author, you still added the information back without the appropriate citations in your edit war. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I call them 'reverting vandalism'. 09.11 BST 29/9.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.175 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Call it whatever you want but continuing to edit war in defiance of policy will get you blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it will get you blocked also, am I right? 80.229.187.175 22.40 BST 29/9/09

I'm not the one edit warring over this so the answer is no. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring will get you blocked, yes. Save the inarticulate and thinly veiled threats for someone who cares for your opinion. Thanks for putting the citation up though! 80.229.187.175 13.38 BST 30/9/09

Removal of PROD from Tamara Lee

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tamara Lee has been removed. It was removed by Garion96 with the following edit summary '(rm prod, not sure about this one)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Garion96 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: edit conflict

I opened a discussion here -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Winger/Polanski

Hi HW - I think the issue on Debra Winger goes beyond sourcing - see my comment on Talk:Debra Winger and see if you agree or disagree and perhaps we can get a dialog going rather than what's been happening. Thanks! Tvoz/talk 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerry Ryan

So a story in the two major newspapers and from the national broadcaster in a country where public figures will sue you ( and done so in the past ) for getting the slightest thing wrong when reporting on them is not RS .Good Grief .Garda40 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention to the details. No matter who publishes them, rumors are generally not encyclopedic. Articles that simply report that rumors are circulating are not considered reliable sources for articles which assert or otherwise indicate that the rumors are true. WP:BLP is quite clear that the central concern is to "get the article right," not to republish speculative, "titillating" claims made elsewhere, whether they're grounds for lawsuits or not. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gerry_Ryan .

The Ogdens (band)

This is a direct recreation (I think word-for-word, but as I'm not an admin I can't see the text of the deleted version) of an article The Ogdens which was deleted.

The article was created, discussed at length for a week, and then deleted on the 18th Sept. On the 24th, it was recreated and speedily deleted:

• 18:23, 24 September 2009 R'n'B (talk | contribs) deleted "The Ogdens" ‎ (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4))
• 01:56, 18 September 2009 Backslash Forwardslash (talk | contribs) deleted "The Ogdens" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ogdens)

I am curious as to why you have declined a speedy deletion, as this is an article which was decided should not be in Wikipedia, and from what I can see there is no difference between the current article and the deleted version.

I thought I would ask you before I put this up for deletion again, in case you were not aware of the recent history of this article (did you read the AfD discussion before removing the Speedy Delete notice, for example?)

I will give you a little while to respond, but by tonight if I have not heard from you, I will proceed to put this up for deletion again.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint about Anne Applebaum

I don't see four reverts, either by you or Krakatoa. The last version of the article that you saved makes no mention of the Polanski issue at all. Do you think it deserves no coverage in the article? Due to some recent improvements, the current version seems more neutral. So all in all, there no longer is a huge problem. I'm not seeing either edit warring or BLP at the moment, except perhaps there are too many references for people being annoyed at Applebaum over the Polanski thing, and this could be slightly over the top. If you still have reservations, maybe they can be explored on the article talk, and the 3RR report could be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument at all. That Krakatoa made 4 reverts to the article in little more than an hour is unmistakable. Note that the "base" version of the article includes a paragraph beginning "In September 2009, Applebaum wrote two opinion pieces in the Washington Post defending Roman Polanski." Each of the four edits by Krakatoa that I cited restores that exact text, whose inclusion in the article was disputed by multiple editors, including me. I don't see how this cannot be a 3RR violation. Krakatoa should be cautioned on this point; simply inserting variations on disputed content without altering a significantly disputed claim isn't a loophole to 3RR. Some of the BLP issues also center on this phrasing -- it's an unsourced, contentious statement regarding the article subject, a subjective interpretation of Applebaum's writings, and therefore clearly inappropriate article content. And I also don't see why you summarily dismiss the conclusion that several editors, again including myself, reach regarding the applicability of WP:BLP#Praise_and_criticism and the disproportionate emphasis placed on this matter in the context of Applebaum's career. Could your please explain your reasoning on these points? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now closed the case. After further study, I have changed my view and now agree with you that the first of the four listed edits by Krakatoa was a revert, in the sense given at WP:REVERT: "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors." EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein

There is nothing "uncivil" or "intellectually dishonest" about warning someone about deleting content without a valid rationale, as I explained politely in that post, which had nothing to do with mere "disagreement" with your edit. Which part of my post do you disagree with? That you're not supposed to delete content because it is badly formatted or written? That's true. That three people opined that that material should remain, including one who offered Third Opinion as part of a request I made to address your concerns? That is also true. If you wanted to refute this, and continue to contest that material's inclusion, then you what you should do is start a consensus discussion on the Talk Page, and not engage in edit warring by removing it again after others decided it should remain. What is actually uncivil and intellectually dishonest is removing my warning to you and falsely labeling it vandalism with the Edit Summuary "rvv". I suggest you not make false accusations of vandalism, since at this point, you should know that a warning against content removal, even if you feel it is unwarranted, does not constitute vandalism. Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Broad

I reverted your reversion edit of my edit of Stuart Broad, as you clearly had not read the reference at the end of the sentence, which confirms both his existing and former girl friends. Before suggesting anything is "gossip" check the references first. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is gossip, whether it's accurate or not. Second, since you didn't provide a link for the supposed reference, it wasn't possible to check it directly, and my first google search didn't immediately turn up a version of the report including that claim. If you don't fully source claims in BLPs, especially claims naming someone other than the article subject, you should expect to see them removed. I accept per WP:AGF that the claim is actually there. But, third, I have great doubts about the encyclopedic significance of information about the "former girl friends" of low-grade celebrities, especially in the absence of any nontrivial consequences on their lives/careers. The extent to which such minutaie are included in articles seems to be inversely related to the significance of the article subject, unless you believe that, for example, Meryl Streep, Jay Leno, Alec Guinness, and Julianne Moore never dated anyone other than their respective spouses. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratan Naval Tata

Provide the source that you believe the user has copied from. You are crossing 3RR. If there are so many sources then provide at least one. warrior4321 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Flores

Now restored and written in order not to violate wiki policies on copyright. Can I suggest that in future if you do not agree with a particular piece of information in an article that you try to challenge that properly rather than get rid of the whole article. We can all go around deleting everything we don't like, but it's not particularly productive. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that all but two words in the original version of the article you "created" were cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted book, you argument doesn't make a bit of sense. You should review Wikipedia's copyright policies, which call for the speedy deletion of obvious copyright violations like the one you committed. That's why the previous version of the article was deleted by an independent admin who reviewed the proper challenge I made to the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Siouxsie Sioux

Re: Other references. I cannot reference directly into the game (world of warcraft). I'll include other references. Do you have any ideas on this? Michaelbarreto (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to find a third-party source which has reported this -- a gaming magazine or a music magazine are the most likely sources to turn up. Official documentation from the game publisher might also be helpful, but I doubt they'd admit this openly, for fear of lawsuit. You might also find it mentioned on her official site, but that's not too likely either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

phrasing of the question can shift an answer

Just to point out that 18c included the phrase "... but you disagree with them even after they present their rationale ...". I took that to imply that I still wanted to have a block installed, and was questioning whether I would do so unilaterally, which I would not. Certainly if I came to the conclusion that discussion on ANI would be pointless, I'd drop it before posting there.—Kww(talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

re:Stephanie Swift

You're right, I should have chosen a better source. It turns out that Chickpedia is a user editable source, not reliable. The idea that she changed her name is not that contentious. She has mentioned so in an interview and the last name of her mother is listed on multiple news releases. I added the birthname again using IMDb as a source. Stillwaterising (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I can find nothing of the reliable sort to prove this. It's most likely true, but for now it will have to be left alone. Stillwaterising (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson

She's back. Now that the articles have been semi-protected, she's editing them under her own account, so at least we can show that all the edits are from the same person. Care to lend a hand with the reverts, and/or to make her see reason? -- Zsero (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I put a detailed warning on her talk page, although (unsurprising, after 11 reverts on one article) she was blocked shortly thereafter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wary of continuing the edit war on my own; I've been down that rabbit-hole before. -- Zsero (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick FYI about Andrew Warde

Hi,

Just a follow-up on your edit summary when you removed the first G12 speedy tag on the above: While the source was published in 1910, it's the date of the death of the author that is relevant, and as far as I could ascertain, George Kemp Ward passed away in 1937, leaving his works under copyright for a few more years. I have therefore deleted the article accordingly. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I beleve you should give this one another look. As WP:Copyright FAQ states, works published before 1923 are presumed to be in the public domain under US law, and there is no indication this book was published or copyrighted anywhere but the US. Moreover, the book is listed in the Internet Archive, generally a reliable reference, as having an expired copyright[33]. As I noted in my removal of the speedy notice, the possible copyright claims would be complex, not self-evident; this would not be an unambiguous copyright violation, and therefore is not suitable for speedy deletion. If you believe the public domain claim is not valid, the article should have been subject to the (non-speedy) process for evaluating possible copyright violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct and the mistake was mine, thanks for pointing it out so that I could redress it. MLauba (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Budania

FYI. You did not address the "notability" issue in your post. Perhaps, the lack of notability is the strongest reason for deletion. (Even stronger than the absence of a single reliable source?) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Budania#Budania —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason For Redirct?

Can you please add you reasons for why you did this on the talk page Talk:Sal the Stockbroker I requested a review of it, you should add why you think it should be redirected. 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be seen here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sal the Stockbroker 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Explained (twice) in the edit summaries. This page is a borderline speedy deletion candidate, since it has no independent/third-party sourcing and its text is devoted to disparaging the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Donatella Diamani

What am I not understanding correctly?

I placed a list of references to print publications in which Dontella Diamani appeared. These were removed, citing "unrefereced laundry list, primary sources at best, not generally included."

Dontatella Diamani is an 80s Italian sex symbol and has appeared in numerous centerfolds. To support that claim I thought the idea was to provide sources, including primary sources, and I supplied a few, down to specific page numbers. Why is it important to censor the fact that she has appeared in pictorals? WHy is it important to remove a pictoral section reference? That would only detract from her fame as a 70s-80s Italian sex symbol, would it not? Mouseydung (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From the reliable sources guideline: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. . . . Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Wikipedia's verifiability policy sets the crucial test as "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." When you provide a list of magazine appearances, rather than a secondary source saying something like "Diamani appeared in pictorials in many men's magazines like Playboy and Playmen," your claim is not verifiable in the sense that Wikipedia policy uses the term. Instead, the user must repeat your (original) research to see whether the claim is true. Sometimes claims that are easily and directly checked may be supported by primary sources -- for example, the claim that "Actress X appeared in a cover-featured pictorial in the [specific date] issue of Playboy" is sometimes supported by a link to the cover of the issue -- but it is better practice to link instead to a news story on the subject, or to a page on the magazine's website reporting the appearance (second-best). This has nothing to do with censorship. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Toni Basil

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, the user in question has been making various edits to the article which are substantially identical to those made by User:Tbasil930, who identified themselves as "Team Basil." The user in question has inserted a significant number of deadlinks and spurious if not outright phony references, including sourcing promotional claims with a general link to the artist's own website. The appearance of COI is certainly present, and I think it's vandalism for that user to repeatedly remove the template without meaningfully addresing it. I think you should restore the template and allow discussion to proceed. If you take a look at the article history, you'll also see that the bulk of the disputed content (well beyond the COI notice) was repeatedly removed by several established editors, myself included, but added back this morning without consensus. I think that adding the COI notice was preferable to edit warring the content itself; the template was added in good faith and is reasonable, and should not have been removed before the debate is resolved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning(s)

• Please stop edit warring.
• If you see that a source does not support the exact claim of the article, you can rewrite the CLAIM. Do NOT simply delete sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In simple terms, No. The cited source does not support the claim "often," as you acknowledge, and the single mention is not itself encyclopedically notable. It is clearly not appropriate for you to reinsert a claim you acknowledge to be false, especially in a BLP. It is not edit warring to remove a claim that is undisputedly false Remember as well that the burden lies with the user trying to keep disputed content, especially poorly sourced content in a BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting someone continuously is edit warring. And let me repeat what I said - you can rewrite the CLAIM. Do NOT simply delete sources. Secondly, the source was not completely improper as it did support the claim only that the phrasing was not very good. So by bold and rephrase. Hope I made it clearer to you this time around. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The source absolutely did not support the claim. Once is not "often." Phil Spector did not "often" shoot and kill women. It's no one's responsibility but yours to write content which conforms to sources. WP:BLP calls for removal of inaccurate, badly sourced content from BLPs, and if you don't accept that than you shouldn't be editing BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

George Michael edit

Hello. You just deleted an entry I made on the George Michael article on the basis that you believed it was "non-constructive". That is a matter of personal point of view as many parts of the article could be considered to be non-constructive to the over all article. Please explain further on the George Michael discussion page before making arbitrarily deletions. Thank you. Artemisboy (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The exact reason was "nonconstructive edits raising BLP issues." You inserted poorly sourced, partly unsourced derogatory material into the biography of a living person. WP:BLP calls for such material to be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Celebitchy.com is a tabloid site, not a reliable source. gminfopage.com is a self-published source which cannot be used as a BLP reference. thedeadbolt.com appears to be nothing more than the standard, unreliable tabloid aggregation page and is used to source a wholly gratuitous negative reference to a nonnotable person who Wikipedia policy demands be left alone. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point on the tabloid site and will search for a more reputible source. In the meanwhile, the autobiography Bare stands on it's own merit as being released by George Michael. Because of this I am re-entering it in the book section, which is where it should be. Artemisboy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Martin

Hi there..i noticed you reverted my addition to the article...as it being non-reliable sources...if so..what sources would be reliable and allowed..ancestry.com and the US census websites...??..the website that is sued seems to be the only one with the paternal side referenced..and in no doubt have more added to his paternal Martin and morales maternal sid when the information is available..the reference that is used for his Corsican great-4 grandfather is still used there which wasnt deleted..although it seems to have enough detail on the negorni side rearched..anyway..give me your views..and ill try to wearch for another website that gives the same info which isnt user edited..although this 'Negroni family tree' is only edited by ONE person..not many...in the website it says he sues the us census and ancestry.com to research the family. ..maybe better to discuss this on the talk page to get further opinions on this..thankyou.Puertorico1 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about genealogy sites to give you a good answer. But I'd be very careful about using anything from ancestry.com. In general, Wikipedia treats sources which allow their users to contribute content without a rigorous review process (including Wikipedia itself) as failing its standards for reliable sources, and therefore unusable as references for articles regarding living persons. The FamilyTreeMaker section of ancestry.com consists mainly if not entirely of user-submitted content [34], and ancestry.com's homepage reports a very heavy volume of user contributions under the headline "FROM ANCESTRY MEMBERS THIS WEEK" [35]. I'd stick to whatever is documented in news/magazine articles and books. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ohh.thanks, the only family members mentioned in the news and books are his parents and his grandmother who he talks about as being an influence..further than that, i cant find. .maybe that small amount can be added then, since there are many people like bill gates, John Mccain etc, ancestry which is documented also in their article by another website, although not in a tree like table. anyway..does that mean if he was dead that this would be ok to use this as a source.? Puertorico1 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Siouxsie Sioux. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Notice

This report may interest you. It seems to be related to Sal the Stockbroker. On an unrelated note, you should consider archiving your talk page as it's takes several seconds to load. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 06:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

Which BLP guidelines does that material fail? Nightscream (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." A current custody dispute involving a six-year-old child is generally unrelated to the subject's notability and has no demonstrable encyclopedic value. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The custody battle is widely reported in mainstream news media. It is part of the subject's notability. BLP does not demand removal of the controversial when it is well sourced. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes it does. See WP:WELLKNOWN, as well as the privacy concerns in WP:BLPNAME. Perhaps there might be room for a short statement when the matter is resolved, but certainly not the inclusion of the allegations made by one side in a custody. We're not talking about the Gosselins here, and we're talking about a brief flurry of lowgrade celebrity journalism, not sustained coverage. If James weren't married to Sandra Bullock, this wouldn't have received anything like the press it had, so there's also the principles behind WP:NOTINHERITED to consider. But most of all, we're exposing the details of the private life of a not-even-six-year-old child to the world, and "this news organization did it first" just isn't an adequate excuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

My reading of WELLKNOWN and BLP in general does not excise mention of the custody battle. I don't see anything in BLP that says we must wait until a controversy is resolved before mentioning it in the respective articles. I agree that unverified allegations from either side of the custody battle has no place in wikipedia BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedural AfD

Hey there. One of the articles you tagged for proposed deletion, Leanni Lei, was contested after deletion. I undeleted the article and nominated it for deletion quoting your prod rationale. Just thought I would let you know. NW (Talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer reported to Wikipedia; Numerous complaints against Wolfowitz

Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has been reported to the Help discussion page regarding several items. I request to have a discussion with you regarding your questionable edits, changes and undos to the Amy Grant page, including one that undid much of my work. I also call into question your admittance regarding following Wikipedia policy (above), hounding from other editors for your past actions and unpredictable and erratic behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds)

• I'd like to comment on the behaviour of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. His "contributions" are mostly destructive where he undoes and deletes what other people contribute in a a very offhanded manner. I think that he's vandalizing pages. It may be a better idea for him to be more constructive in his editing. Instead of merely deleting or undoing, perhaps he should consider fixing the problem himself. Try and do some of the work in creating pages of high quality. This would be a more collaborative approach and more in line with what Wikipedia is all about. I'm sure that his intentions are very honourable, however, I believe that he needs a more constructive approach to editing pages. I hope that my comment is perceived as constructive because that was my intention. Michaelbarreto (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds)

This is another complaint against Wolfowitz. This volunteer has repeatedly made destructive and erratic changes to a popular wiki page though he/she apparently has no other purpose or reason than to exert his own influence and will on content. Wolfowitz's misguided efforts are hurting wikipedia and the valuable contributions of editors who work hard to make wikipedia a positive environment where collective efforts create good content. Dougmac7 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds)

ANI

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Hullaballoo!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know somebody pasted the following (within the quotes) on my talk page -- "What do you mean by this? YOu wrote that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz deserves an award for being a "great watchdog" on wikipedia. Yet, several people have written major complaints about his destructive changes to pages that he has no connection to? Please explain why you are the only one who thinks he is doing good work. He himself wrote in his bio page that many people hounded him about his erratic changes to pages. Why is he apparently targeting my work? I have worked on two pages in the past 2 weeks- and he continually undoes my work without giving any explanation and without discussing though I specifically ask people to discuss before changing the content."

And then they didn't sign it. Generally I remember that your contributions to Dana Delany and Gerald Celente were positive and constructive, and I appreciate your advice and help with both of those articles. I also appreciate that you weeded out poorly sourced stuff, and dubious references, and alerted me about how some sources were bogus (and I agree with you, and I don't use them any more). So, just letting you know I appreciate your work! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jerome Vered

I'm still not seeing how he meets notability. I've found the same sources as you now, but all I'm seeing is a two-sentence mention in a book on Jeopardy! and incidental coverage following his Jeopardy! win. Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Collins and Eva Mendes

Hello, I did a Courtesy Blank on Thunder Collins.

I did not intentionally mean to "attack" him and apologize that it came off that way.

I searched for a page for him on Wikipedia and found none, so decided to start one. The only recent info that I had was the current info about his situation.

I assumed that others would come along and add to his biography, but instead it was viewed as an attack on the person, which it wasn't.

It seems that I have come under attack by a few users on my posts, but I have made posts without logging in previously that were not viewed as spam.

It's weird that once I joined and started posting as a logged in user, I became a target.

I subscribe to a Celeb/News Blog and when info comes through the Feed, I check Wikipedia to see if it has already been posted and provide a Source.

Blogs as sources are allowed from what I have read in the policies. It would be unfair for a Source to have to be a big name news site.

If my source was a particular blog, then that is what I cite.

I've also noticed that many times Users will delete my source, but keep the news from that source reported. This is not how I understood Wikipedia to work. Anything that I post deserves to have a source added to it. So, if a blog is my source, why should I not give them credit for it.

According to the Guidelines that I have read, we are first to assume that the Editor is editing in Good Faith. I have been, but many have simply attacked me as a spammer without considering that I provided valid info on a topic.

Please talk with me before the threats of Blocking me. I am not a spammer, just an eager User. Now, that I have joined and started posting under my User name, I have seen the True Colors of Wikipedia. My anonymous posts are still untouched somehow, but they also link to various blogs.

Please advise if I should begin posting anonymously again, since I did not have these sorts of issues before. My content and sources were considered valid then and should be considered valid now.

Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia's policy regarding articles concerning living persons, blogs are generally not allowed as sources. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." Under Wikipedia's general policy regarding article sources, "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable."

I can't speak about your prior anonymous contributions without more information, but it certainly appears as though every prior edit using the "Ralphie Boy Blog" as a source has been removed [36].

Issues relating to the Thunder Collins article are now being debated under the Wikipedia standard article deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess my main concern here is that many of the posts themselves were not deleted, so it appears that the CONTENT was acceptable. No problem though, it appears that Wikipedia doesn't consider "small" sources as valid sources which is ashame. Many times, blogs, etc., have new info before it even hits news sources. No prob, I guess I'll keep posting, but will only give "news" sites despite the fact that it may not have come from them. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As one of the editors that has been removing your (Niac7) links to blogs, I guess I should comment here. First, you've misrepresented the situation. I would like to correct those misrepresentations here:

"I have made posts without logging in previously that were not viewed as spam. It's weird that once I joined and started posting as a logged in user, I became a target."

Incorrect. Posts made by User:96.25.163.229 and User:198.203.191.61 and User:198.203.191.59 (also you?) have also been removed or edited. Your edits were removed because they violated Wikipedia policy, not because of who made them.

"Blogs as sources are allowed from what I have read in the policies."

Incorrect. Blogs are almost always not allowed, as explained by H. Wolfowitz above.

"I've also noticed that many times Users will delete my source, but keep the news from that source reported."

Sometimes, but rarely and only temporarily while more appropriate sources are found. Such as in this example, where the Ralphie Boy citation was replaced by an Associated Press source.

"According to the Guidelines that I have read, we are first to assume that the Editor is editing in Good Faith. I have been, but many have simply attacked me as a spammer without considering that I provided valid info on a topic."

You are correct that we are to assume good faith. But sometimes, when we see edits like this, where you do not add any content at all, and instead only add a link to your blog, one's good faith might be tested. There have been editors in the past that have tried to increase traffic to their own websites by spamming links to those websites throughout Wikipedia articles.

"Many times, blogs, etc., have new info before it even hits news sources."

This is correct; but that information on blogs is also often filled with errors, incomplete, false or defamatory content. Blogs do not have editorial oversight, like reputable newspapers and and magazines; that's why we don't use blogs. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also see that you put the Thunder Collins back up. I Created that article and you said it was an attack. So now, I went in to do a Courtesy Blank and it is back up. Once again, you have kept the content, but you have a problem with my sources. This is very hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Northumbrian saints

Ah, the articles themselves looked different to the ones on Wikipedia on the saints. On AllExperts.com I'm sure I've seen before articles where they have one person just writing something out, is this right? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Allexperts.com does have original material, but it also has a huge collection of pages copied from Wikipedia. I'm not positive, but I believe all the pages with URLs beginning http://en.allexperts.com/e/ are mirrored, while their other pages are original. (The /e/ indicating "encyclopedia," which generally means wikipedia. URLs beginning http://en.allexperts.com/q/ in contrast present original content, responding to questions from users).

Their "encyclopedia" pages often look different from current Wikipedia pages because they don't do a very good job of updating their pages as our articles change; for example, their article of Eadfrith of Lindisfarne [37] apparently hasn't been updated since 2005 or so; it corresponds to the earliest version of the Wikipedia page [38]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

She's at it again

Special:Contributions/Priscila Herig -- Zsero (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

...and that's four. -- Zsero (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What a day. I got blocked this morning for reverting her three times; I've been unblocked by another admin, who agreed that Priscila's edits constitute vandalism. -- Zsero (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Our friend seems not to have noticed my edit, which took out the only substantive content she's trying to add to the article. She's now reverting to my version, isn't she? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, she's now only reverting All Hallow Wraith's edits, either because she didn't notice, or because her only purpose now is to make a point. -- Zsero (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And there she goes again. Could you please help out with the reverting, if only so that the next admin who comes along doesn't make the same mistake Chamal N made yesterday, and think this is all me? -- Zsero (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ann-Margret

Hi, I noticed the revision you made for Ann-Margret 15 minutes ago. If you're a confirmed user, can you get a look at the color photograph that someone deleted in 2008? I recall distinctly seeing it in the article before that time. It's such a great picture of her that it should go back in. What copyright issues, if any, were/are at stake? Thanking you in advance for your attention. Photodouble (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't actually know what issues were at stake, but judging by the caption, it fails Wikipedia's internal policies regarding the use of copyrighted images (WP:FU). The image file itself has been deleted, and I don't have access to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Special school

I don't see why you endorsed it. I have provided enough reasons and still you endorsed it. Rovea (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tina Reid/Louise Germaine

So, basically, are you maintaining that the actress "Louise Germaine" is not the former glamour model born as Tina Reid, who worked under that name and a number of other pseudonyms? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm insisting that you not introduce a claim of that nature into the relevant article(s) unless it meets the requirements for reliable sourcing and the stringent requirements of WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your problem is that you're asking for an unreasonable standard of explicit verification for something that happened 22 years ago that was - understandably - dealt with circumspectly at the time. The basic facts, though, are that "Tina Reid" appeared nude in the March 1987 Vol. 22/No. 3 issue of Mayfair, in which it was stated that it was her first modelling work, and claiming that she had just turned 17, even though it now seems widely accepted that she was born in 1971, and so wouldn't actually reach that age until 1988.

At the time, back-issues of Mayfair were usually available from the publishers for several years after publication, but whilst 22/3 was listed as available in 22/4 & 22/5, it was not subsequently. Reid went on to further modelling work under a variety of pseudonyms, including the differently-spelled "Tina Reed," "Trixie Buckingham," etc. That Reid is "Louise Germaine" is not disputed.

A report in the Daily Express on 21/08/93 (p. 35) gives Louise Germaine's age as 21, suggesting she must have been born no earlier than 22/08/71. Even allowing a couple of months for error (i.e. back to c. 20/06/71) , she would clearly have been 15 when the Mayfair set was published, let alone when the photographs were actually taken. An earlier Daily Express report (Sat 20/03/93 p. 27) at the time Lipstick on Your Collar was first transmitted specifically states:

"Her foray into topless modelling began when she was 15. After a few years she got sick of the life style."

I rest my case, and will therefore be reinstating the content to the Mayfair page. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Even If you think the requirements of WP:BLP are unreasonable, you shouldn't make controversial edits to BLPs in defiance of them. If you really want to press the case, you should present it at the BLP noticeboard rather than edit warring in order to insert policy-violating content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing more to discuss. The entirely legitimately citable Express piece clearly states she was 15, and I note that another editor has provides a rock-solid citation that "Louise Germaine" is Tina Reid. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Once again, take the discussion to BLP. You do not have any reliable sources saying the two persons are the same, at best only a claim that one of many pseudonyms used by a model corresponds to the reported birth name of an actress, and too much of your argument is based on the reliability of the usually fictional text accompanying a pictorial in a softcre porn magazine. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It may have escaped your notice, but an eminently reliable source (the biography Potter on Potter) has already been added to corroborate that Louise Germaine is/was Tina Reid. Are you disputing that, as well? This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that "Louise Germaine" looks exactly like the photos attributed to Tina Reid/Tina Reed/Trixie Buckingham/etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It has escaped your attention that the fact that a model's pseudonym corresponds to a person's birthname does not mean that the model and the person are one and the same -- especially when the model is known by various pseudonyms, often assigned by a photographer or publisher rather than the model herself. It also seems to have escaped your notice that the remaining claims in the paragraph you want to insert lack both reliable sources and significance in context, so it's not appropriate to include in the article anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that "Tina Reid" was a pseudonym used by the model, only that the names she subsequently used were. Reid was described in Mayfair of March 1987 as coming from Margate, Kent, and that she had just moved from her mother's home to a place of her own. In the Daily Express of 27/08/93 (p. 35) "Germaine" was described as, "a former nude model from Margate, in Kent..." An interview with "Germaine" in The Guardian of 24/10/96 corroborates a childhood in Margate and states, "By the age of 15 she had had enough (of Margate) and came to London in 1986." The chances of all that being a coincidence must be astronomical; "Louise Germaine" looking exactly like Tina Reid would be completely off the scale. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Find a source actually making the identification. All the rest violates WP:NOR. Nothing you cite from Mayfair satisfies WP:RS, by the way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that the Tina Reid looks exactly like "Louise Germaine"? Why is Mayfair uncitable? Where is the specific page on Wikipedia that says it is not? Nick Cooper (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR. WP:RS. EOD Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So where exactly does it say in either of those that Mayfair is uncitable? It seems to me that you've argued yourself into a corner because you didn't actually expect anyone could demonstrate that "Louise Germaine" is/was Tina Reid. The bottom line is that at the time Lipstick on Your Collar was broadcast, "Louise Germaine" was almost immediately identified as the glamour model who used numerous pseudonyms, but started her career under her real name of Tina Reid, the latter confirmed for "Germaine" in the Dennis Potter biography. A perfectly reputable source - i.e. the Daily Express - clearly stated that she was 15 when that career began. It seems you spend all your time on Wikipedia purging uncited details, but what is your motivation for this particular piece of revisionism? Nick Cooper (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why you've characterized description of subject's video, subject's own links, as "spam"

(1) Can you please read Talk:Iman Crosson#Including descriptions of Crosson's videos and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of an objective description of a subject's own prior video as supposedly being spam? (A major part of the subject's notability is the very activity of producing videos.) . . . . . (2) Similar request: please read Talk:Iman Crosson#Including links to Crosson's official websites and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of links to some of subject's own websites as supposedly being spam. Thank you. RCraig09 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

John De Groot

Did you take a look at the previously deleted version? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to it, and I don't see how it could be relevant. If the tone of this version bothers you, simply clean out whatever language you feel to be excessively peacock in nature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brad Hunt (disambiguation)

Enjoy! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd again like to thank the many editors and admins who've been dealing with the current vandalism sprees on my user and talk pages and the user/talk pages of other editors, especially those who've themselves become targets of the vandal as a consequence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Your BLP contributions

		The BLP Barnstar
		For taking on many contentious BLP articles and maintaining your ground when enforcement gets messy, I hereby award you this BLP Barnstar. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Veronika Zemanová

Yeah, I was uncertain on this one, so I undeleted it because I couldn't really tell from my short search if she was a playmate or not. If not, put a speedy tag on it and I'll delete. Dreadstar ☥ 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Bah! On further investigation, I can find no indication of notability that meets Wikipedia policy, so I've deleted the article and left a note for the editor who was advocating for her. Dreadstar ☥ 03:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

She's not a Playmate, they won't shoot anyone who has appeared nude elsewhere first. Was first shot by J. Stephen Hicks and appeared at ddgirls.com in 1998, then as a Penthouse centerfold in '99 I believe. I was the producer of that site then & remember her first day on the job. No sense of humor that one. Lexlex (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage

Do you want me to semiprotect it longterm (or indefinitely) ? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, figured you could use this, man...

vn-∞This user page has been
vandalized many, many times.

Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi HW, I think you have a typo in your recent comment at the gay porn performer AfD. You say that 62 items are sourced to the Adam 2004 directory, then you say 29 items are sourced to the same directory. Should one of those be a different year? (BTW, you might think about archiving some old discussions from this page - it's rather large. :) )

Thanks, I've fixed the date to 1999. One of the footnotes in the article was glitched, and I didn't catch it (or the fact that there was another footnote with more cites to the 1999 directory.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA question

I saw your question, but I have to be off the internet for a few hours and will respond once I get back online. Just wanted to alert you on this as I responded elsewhere on the RfA. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff

That's fine; it's a (deliberately) pointed question and it concerns a significant, complex issue. I'd hoped you'd take some time to consider your answer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott Storch

I wanna give you some due credit - good job cleaning up that page. MattDredd (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner

No, you didn't miss anything. The link I have to the article isn't one that is available to the passerby as it is to a subscription site. There isn't a requirement that sourcing be available online or a link provided for a reference for it to be valid. I added an abbreviated link to the article that brings up the same page instead of the detailed one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

General Question

Hi established wikipedia editor. I have a question. For example, Glenn Gilberti - his name is spelt wrong here. How do I edit the main heading so that it'll be "Glenn Gilbertti" (with two ts). I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Thanks in advance. Marty2Hotty (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you need a solid, reliable source to establish the spelling. I did a quick search, found that both spellings are used, but that "Gilberti" is used about five times more frequently online, and is also clearly the more common spelling in news sources. So I wouldn't change the spelling until you get consensus on the article's talk page. If you do, the process would be to move the page rather than edit the title (it can't be edited directly). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- Hullaballoo... I know Glenn, and he has done interviews and written columns on WrestleZone.com - his last name is spelt Gilbertti. He also has a facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730862806 - that is his real spelling. His name has been spelt incorrectly in news sources because he used to go by his alias "Disco Inferno". Can you guide me through the process of moving the article? Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

- Update - I have moved the article to "Glenn Gilbertti" myself after going through the help pages on wikipedia regarding how to move articles. I know this is the correct spelling and it has been confirmed on columns on wrestlezone.com - http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/article/random-thoughts-belts-are-props-part-one-58899 is an example. Thanks again for your help. Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools notable?

You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors whose consensus inspired that debate. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ophélie Bretnacher

Dear Hullaballoo, The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a problem of non-judicial and police cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. is a matter concerningth are human rights and democracy in Europe espacially France and Hungary Best regards

1 -Many people in Paris are reading this discussion page and have pointed out that Hell in a Bucket looked alone to decide. Moreover he has also noticed on another page, I was suspected of creating pages for films that do not exist ????? What this new charge yet?

2 - is it normal, that Hell in a Bucket notifie that "that time is not now" at 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) than the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article ? 3

3 - What do other people think, now that they know that it is not a commemoration page, but the page on The Ophélie Bretnacher case wich is very important in France and Hungary , butnot for you, we have seen ? The problem is really, are you open for other civilisations here in U.S.A ? Or your Wiki in english is it just for american knowledge ?

Raymondnivet (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Book series covers

Hey Hullabaloo, I seem to remember your being involved in a WP:NFCC discussion about having book series cover images in articles about the series of books, was there ever a resolution to that question? It was regarding these IFD's, and now the same covers are being put up again, per this reasoning. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riyadh_Shikawi

Hello. Could you please take a look at my reply to your !vote on this AfD? I am concerned by your rationale and another thought also struck me while I replied to you. I think you'd probobly be able to answer my question pretty well. Thanks and happy editting.--v/r - TP 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Chase Masterson

Hello HW. I've just blocked an IP who recently edited this article, per User talk:166.205.130.250#December 2009. I do not know if this is a sock, but it is quite unlikely to be a sock of Cubert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live

A proposal has been created for WikiProject Saturday Night Live. Please leave comments, and consider joining as a potential project member.Mainly.generic (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Iris Chacon

Learn Spanish you will get the joke, just because you do not speak the language does not mean it is a sujective interpretation. Also there is not a copyright violation. RichardBond (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

List of political dissidents

I disagree with adding Jesus, John the Baptist or Martin Luther as political dissidents, because they were at best religious dissidents, not political dissidents. Anybody with half a brain today knows that religion and politics are always meant to be separate nowadays, and that adding such examples is the absolute height of impertinence. Plus, there is also room for disagreement about whether Jesus was a dissident, since he clearly thought that the real dissidents were the pharisaic Jews, having ordrered them to render unto Caesar. ADM (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

I noticed that 3/4 of your edits have to do with some type of reverting. Is this a second-hand account of another user that is meant only for reverting ? If it is, I think the account in question should probably be blocked. ADM (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why would being an RC patroller mean this is a sock? tedder (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he's an RC patroller, I think he's something else. ADM (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd

You cite as your reason for censoring my post on Mark Lloyd's page that it is "subjective commentary, intended as derogatory." All I did was quote the guy, how is that subjective? And it's what he said, so if there was any intention to be derogatory it was his his, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countervaling (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, we can begin with your statement that "Lloyd had some very troubling things to say about the First Amendment," which is obviously subjective and less than complimentary. And selective quotation is a well-known mode of character assassination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Daly

I have two issues:

1. How is a cited reference to a major newspaper considered vandalism?

2. Why would the examiner (sfgate) be blacklisted? I don't understand this....

KermitClown (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to be sticking my beak in, but I second Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that you, KermitClown, are a vandal. I've reviewed your contributions and you seem to be adding nothing helpful nor useful to any of these articles. I'm just saying, I have no problem supporting a ban on you. Geeky Randy (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the issue at hand here. Why is a newspaper blacklisted from this particular article? I cna't find anywhere that it was. KermitClown (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I might as well apply to become an administrator/moderator, as you sir, have zero credibilty in my opinion. Seems you simply blanket categorize things as vandalism if someone does not share your POV. This is true of your characterizations of the Daly article. Seems like you go around and revert edits, like a bull in a china shop and never have any original edits to contribute. KermitClown (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sylvia El Nakkady

While I agree with your assessment that notability is asserted, I later found that the entire section that I had marked off-topic was a copyvio and I promptly removed it. What's left is a sub-stub that does not assert anything, and I am unable to find references about Ms. El Nakkady (though the magazine itself gets a lot of ghits), in fact I am not even able to locate any primary sources. Do you think this should go to AfD? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I just posted to the AFD, coincidentally. I wish I'd suggested PRODding it originally -- better yet, PRODded it myself; with the copyvio gone there's not enough to support a decent stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your revert

Despite your revert, please note [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43]. Not only are you somehow not "a neutral editor doing the restore", the title just keeps appearing in edit summaries, as an anchor, etc. This is what I mean, i.e. anyone who critiques him is somehow not neutral and anyone who warns him will have his/her warnings ignored. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Costa

My apologies for removing the AFD tag from Claudia Costa I checked both the original AFD and the deletion review but did not notice the 2nd AFD. Thanks for adding the tag back in. RP459 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nadine Janssen

Would you happen to know why did I get a bot message saying that the Nadine Janssen article that apparently I created is scheduled for deletion? I mean I have never started that article. Why would I be getting the message then? Norum 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(stalker, replying) Looks like you worked on it very early on. tedder (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I worked on it back then, but I never started the article. Norum 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note the message says "An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on". Emphasis on "or worked on". tedder (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How could it be deleted if the MAJORITY said to keep the article? 6 were to keep it, 5 to delete it. So technically that should have been kept. So much for the fairness on Wikipedia. Pathetic. Norum 14:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the keep !votes were correctly discounted as not based in policy. In addition, most of the keep !votes seem to come from an IP stalker of mine who's just come off a block for sockpuppetry and deserves another one. You could take this to DRV, but you'd get your head handed to you rather quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I got Puma Swede reinstated in January 2009, I will get Nadine Jansen reinstated too. Norum 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

snl archives

the snl archives is a reliable site. It is accurate when detailing a show and a season.

http://snl.jt.org/season.php?i=1975

For example that link right there provides all the episodes, all the cast and the number of times live from... was said. It provides proof with pictures from the episode. The source is credible, by using the archives information we can calculate the number of times live from... was said and give it off to help wikipedias page. It very important, it shows how the cast member has importance in the show. Just like how the best of section the update section, it shows the importance of the cast member in their era. It would greatly help fans just as how the other sections on the page are. I dont understand why the archvies arent a good enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water78 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you may think of it, it's a self-published site failing WP:RS, and may not be used to source claims regarding living persons. Rather than arguing with individual editors about settled policy issues, you should familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and be sure your edits comply with them. The many uncontroverted warnings on your talk page should demonstrate this beyond doubt. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You removed the photo attached to the article "Loek van Mil". I shot this photo myself, so there's no copyright infringement. The picture only needs to be reduced to a proper size, I did not know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutfieldAssist (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

which is the best?

As a courtesy often overlooked by nominators, which is the most neutral way to post a note about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hudecki (2nd nomination) on the talk pages of the article's editors and particpants of the previous AFD? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Advanced URL: User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt#Peter_Hudecki_.282nd_AFD.29 Ikip 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Shimuzu

It is a double created article discussed at the BLPN and I am moving the contents and creating a redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that might be, the situation has sat at the BLPN for some time and I was just doing what I thought was correct, I have not trashed anything, I have moved all the content to the talkpage of the other article and added the cats and externals there, yes some trimming needs to be done and it does appear a bit fan site I tagged it myself, I have never done a redirect myself and have asked a question as regards doing it at the wiki help desk, feel free if I have made some wheels drop off I will revert all my edits as regards this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Suzanne Carlsson

Hi,

Before these deletions, did you consider taking the time to have a look for better sources? I wasn't aware that The Sun was considered an inherently unreliable source either: can you point me to that discussion? While the sourcing could be better, I generally opt for Web-accessible references for new articles because they're easier to verify than offline publications (especially newspapers and magazines). I don't think there's reason to believe that the content in question is actually false, and it forms the basis of the article's notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The unreliable source was "chickipedia," an anyone-can-edit site. The Sun-referenced content was removed because the text in the article didn't match what was actually written in the source; and what was written in the source, as characterized there, wasn't verifiable and/or encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There are primary sources for her height (the thing referenced to Chickipedia) if you're just looking for verification. As for the stuff verified to the Sun, again I'd like to see where the discussion was which concluded that it automatically wasn't a reliable source. I've seen at least two separate scans of tabloid articles which contain the information in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One more time: the article content referenced to the Sun article didn't match up with what the Sun article actually said, and what little that was verifiable wasn't encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear here: you're suggesting that an article which says the following:

MODEL Suzanne claims to have the longest legs in Scotland - at a whopping 44 INCHES. ... She even insured them once for a staggering £1million.

does "not match up" with the material added, which said:

Carlsson ... is on record as having the longest legs of any Scottish person, with an inside leg measurement of 36.5 in (93 cm) and an outside measurement of 46.5 in (118 cm). Her legs are insured for 1 million pounds sterling.

Even given the discrepancy of the actual measurement, the actual content of both sections syncs up pretty neatly. Before I take this to a third opinion, care to reconsider the deletion? I'm happy for it to be tagged for better sources, but this was really a baby-with-the-bathwater moment IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got it. "Suzanne claims to have" is not the same as "is on record as having"; and "insured them once" is no the same as "are insured." BTW, the latter claim is a well-known type of publicity stunt, and the "insurance policy" is typically low-cost, short-duration, very limited protection --a non-significant event. [44] [45]

Thanks. I'd have appreciated that fuller explanation when I first asked. I'll see whether I can find any better references for the leg length claim. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Zooey Deschanel Discography

Hi Hullaballoo: I first added "In the Sun" without reference, which was removed by Andrewlp1991 stating appropriately "...If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes..." I then added back including appropriate references, but you removed it again citing andrewlp. What's that about? {Sec906 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}

The references aren't appropriate, especially for a BLP. The first reference is to a blog, which is treated as self-published and generally fails WP:RS. The second source, last.fm, relies on user-supplied content and material copied from Wikipedia (note in particular the "edit" function on the page you referenced). The third ref goes to a retail site, also generally inappropriate (especially for unreleased material, where Amazon is willing to solicit orders before a release/date is solidly set). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I shall try to be more careful. Then as for Munchausen By Proxy being a fictional band, I think an appropriate source might be http://stereogum.com/archives/zooey_deschanel_does_synth_pop_for_the_new_jim_car_040631.html Would you agree? In part, my issue is that the current Wikipedia entry seems to present this as an actual band rather than make it clear this band is fictional. {Sec906 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}

Reference "...and first single 'In the Sun'..." http://www.mergerecords.com/blog/2009/12/she-him-reveal-volume-two-details/ is the news blog for Merge Records. Although a blog, it is not user editable and is from their own record label's site. Does that not qualify as reliable? Sorry for the hassle, and thanks for your help on this. {Sec906 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}

Those refs look good enough to me; a corporate blog (as opposed to a personal blog) is generally an acceptable source for claims related to the corporation's business, so long as the claims aren't inappropriately self-serving. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! {Sec906 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}

Here is my concern

I normally find you to be pretty balanced on AfD's, but in the case of the Cash Prince, I feel you're on a slippery slope. GNG is being used to shoehorn in non-notable people. For example, if my local paper (which passes WP:RS does a profile on the local karate instructor that opened a new school, he passes GNG as you are applying it. It is significant coverage (he is the subject) and the source is reliable and third party. Is that really what you believe the intent of GNG is? Is that where you want Wikipedia to go? My other question is about the criterias for different classes. Have you seen many examples, of a politician that doesn't pass GNG but does pass WP:POLITICIAN? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

DGG recently added a comment to the AFD that I think accurately presents the position I hold. I'd add that a working consensus has been developed at AFDs that an obituary article (not just a local story, death notice or short wire story) in a national newspaper of record like the NYTimes is sufficient evidence of notability, and that similar reasoning covers profiles of living persons in such media. The significance of coverage increases with the importance of the source, and sometime a single source is enough if the publisher is important enough. (There's a very strong, related argument that the likelihood of a subject being covered only in a national newspaper of record, without prior or subsequent coverage elsewhere, is vanishingly low, so that requiring a search for other coverage would call for wasted effort. It's the same principle that justifies most of the specialized notability guidelines.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So how do I get AfterElton counted as "reliable".

It's a very professional & important Blog for LGBT-in-the-media issues, and that was a article that covered events on the show, not speculation. For now I'll replace the source with one from the Howard Stern show website itself that the article linked to, but how do I get AfterElton counted as "reliable" so I can use it for future referencing?----occono (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Miss Pooja

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Miss Pooja. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pooja (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiana Tom

Since you want to be snarky with your edit summaries, I won't worry about tip-toeing around. You're being pedantic about the Playboy appearence. She was completely nude, everyone knows it and it was one of their best selling issues. You keep citing BLP.....exactly which part of BLP is the problem? The issue isn't libelous or contentious. She isn't ashamed of it and readily admits it. There is plenty of proof, but the images are copyrighted. What exactly do you think the phrase "posed for Playboy" is supposed to mean? In family friendly RS's, like newspapers, they tend to avoid being overly descriptive of things like what nude photos showed. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• The NY Post article DOES specify nude. I am restoring it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I just realized the Post articles title is "FLEX' AND SEX; ESPN AND MTV STARS STRIP FOR PLAYBOY". What do you think "strip" means? Even if you don't have access to the full article (which isn't my problem), the title alone should make you think maybe you're being a little too picky about this issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Is there some reason you reverted without comment? Have you read the Talk:Michael_Richards#Consensus_section established on the article's talk page? HesAKramer (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see.

1. It's not supported by the source cited as a reference for it.
2. It's an unsupported claim regarding a living person, and therefore a BLP violation.
3. A three-year-old "consensus" to disregard sourcing and BLP requirements is utterly worthless.
4. Despite that weird little "consensus" claim on the talk page, the content was removed from the article more than two years ago, withou any apparent challenge until you added it back yesterday.
5. You're fairly obviously a sockpuppet / SPA and your intentions are vandalous.
6. The edit was accurately flagged as problematic by a valid edit filter, putting the burden on editors who wish to keep it.
   

That should be good enough for now. Y'all don't come back now, y'hear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to dislike having been shown that you were in error. Had you taken five minutes to actually the article's talk page instead of blindly reverting false positives from the edit filter, you'd have seen the Washington Post source used in the section: [46]

"The man continued to yell back at Richards, saying several times, "That was uncalled for!" He called Richards a series of names, including "cracker" and "[expletive] white boy" and disparaged his post-"Seinfeld" career."

Why not admit that you screwed up and move on? There's a long-standing consensus on that article's talk page to include this part of their exchange, and you have no reason to keep deleting it now except for petty vindictiveness. HesAKramer (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Marketa Belonoha

Hi Wolf, I just reviewed you recent edits to the Marketa Belonoha article. You removed 70% of the text in the article plus a long and carefully compiled list of her work. Most of the text was sourced. You seem to be selective in your deletions as you removed all mention of nudity and left other text even though what you deleted and what you removed were from the same source. This is not proper or neutral editing. Judging from the threads above, it would seem that this kind of selective editing may be a pattern with you. I hope you are able to alter this pattern soon. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

John Kricfalusi

Someone's been adding a "Criticisms" (sic) section, which doesn't follow the BLP guidelines. Could your bot watch the page and revert these edits? ----IsaacAA (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful

I'm sure this was just an oversight but in the same edit you removed the few sources that were listed as references while adding a tag asserting that the article had no references. You also dated that tag September 2007 rather than any current date. -- Banjeboi 08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Brasileirinhas

I'm really bored of your ill edits. You even delete parts that have proper references on the relevant articles. Now, this is what genuine vandalism is. Understand? Behemoth (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dilini mi yuttun amına goduumun, dinini ekmeeni siktiimin pici? Behemoth (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Talvin DeMachio

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Talvin DeMachio. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be calling me a fraud

I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime. Ash (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No. You are misrepresenting the situation. You are presenting a link to a retailer page which acknowledges that it is a Wikipedia mirror, with word-for-word identical text, with a description claiming it is an independent source. You changed the description after I pointed out it was a mirror page. I don't see any good faith in your behavior. Don't post here again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sharington

Thank you for the feedback. I will make citations corrections change tone to be less promotional. I know Grace personally and she used to go by Amy Gilbertson. She was in Miss America and runner up to Miss Iowa. I will site her accomplishments and also correct any inadvertent deceptions on my part. I am NOT a promoter, my name is Jeffrey Fry and am a personal friend of Ms. Sharington and thought her life noteworthy. Of course, I bow to your guidelines as you see fit to implement and thank you for your understanding and consideration. You can find me on LinkedIn and Facebook. I live in Austin, TX (jxf@austin.rr.com) is my email address and I invest and help start ups. Jeteye (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed info about 3rd person that is not verifiable, incorrect name. Added link to pageant winner. Jeteye (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jocelyn Wildenstein

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jocelyn Wildenstein. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tapuah junction stabbing DrV

Hi HW: I think you have a typo (loser instead of closer) in the DrV which could, in theory, be taken poorly. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

AAARRRGGGHHHH. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:B-Wuuu

Hello. Would you object to your AN/I report being moved to AN, which is better suited to that kind of discussion? Because there's no specific "incident" to deal with, stuff like that sometimes gets overlooked on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If that's where it belongs, it should be moved there. I don't know the mechanics of doing it ,though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me give it a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've made the move. AN is generally a better place for behavioral or status questions to be handled that aren't centered on a specific disruptive incident, so I believe that the move is entirely justified. We'll see if an admin objects to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The AN report has now scrolled off the board without any action being taken, so I have filed a sockpuppet report here, if you'de like to comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

And he's filed an AN/I complaint against me here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Millepied

Thank you for cleaning up Benjamin Millepied; Wikipedia does not need to resemble Us. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at AN/I

You commented on a closed discussion, FYI. I reverted your edits/comments. Please take it to RFC/U if the discussion is opened up there. This is to keep everything closed, and everyone calm and to let the discussion either die or go to the appropriate place. Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the authority of a non-admin to close an ANI discussion in the absence of an expressed consensus that it be closed. It strikes me that I would have just as much right to reopen it as you had to close it. I don't see where you have any right to expunge my comments, regardless of your opinion of their propriety. Perhaps you could identify a relevant policy, guideline, precedent or practice.

I'd also note that when I posted my comments, I did not receive the standard conflict notice, which I should havr received if my edit was subsequent to your closing edit (however valid that was). That suggests to that there's some sort of glitch involved, and you ought to respect in good faith my posting.

I'd also point out that my comments go well beyond the scope of the purported RFC/U, which I think has been framed as an attempt to intimidate editors with whom Ash has been in conflict. As someone who's been the target of Ash's innuendo in the recent past, I also think I should be seen as having a right to comment on discussions where Ive been involved by implication. You should restore my comments, and I also believe you should remove your unilateral closure without consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Dusti's talk page.
Message added 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored your edit

While it's clear that very little "action" will be taken on this matter, Dusti doesn't get to decide who can or can not have their say. The typical way things are handled at AN/I is that conversation is allowed to go on until it peters out on its own, unless that conversation is total nightmare. While your mileage may vary on "total nightmare", that conversation doesn't even rise to the level of "minor dustup." Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Swift

Yes, I guess you're right. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And you thought nobody noticed...

...Well, it may have something to do with the incredibly long watchlist I insist on maintaining, but I did:

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For all your hard work in the background, particularly in keeping crap out of BLPs. When I see your name on my watchlist, I know that's one less mess I have to clean up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Following up on concerns about User:Ash's use of citations

Please see this draft RFC/U. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been dealt with at ANI, but since it wasn't I'm following up with an RFC/U as suggested. I have told Ash of my intention to file this, for what it's worth. Let me know if you have any comments or additions (feel free to just make changes). I'll submit it in the next day or so, depending on the feedback I receive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ke$sha and SNL

You removed Ke$sha's scheduled performance on SNL citing WP:BLP concerns. Can you please participate in the discussion here.[47] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

3rr reply

Thanks for the heads up! Fixer23 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sharington

On the talk, I proposed stubifying the article and I just wanted to alert you to it to see what you think. Thanks!  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Donzaleigh Abernathy

Hi there.

Re. recent additions to Donzaleigh Abernathy which you removed; I spoke to a user in the help channel (at length), and what happened is this;

Donzaleigh (talk · contribs) added something somewhat promotional and unreferenced, several times. They did not understand Wikipedia policies on WP:BRD etc. They were warned.

Their friend, Madamewus (talk · contribs), then tried to add exactly the same thing - and was blocked as a sock.

Madamewus came into the IRC help channel, and I explained all about policies etc; they requested an unblock (see their talk page), and they now intend to explain what they would like to add on talk:Donzaleigh Abernathy, and they will provide references.

Therefore, please could you look out for their discussion there, and comment on it. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grace Sharington

An article that you have been involved in editing, Grace Sharington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Sharington. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- WikHead (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

India Allen

Why was Category:American female adult models inappropriate for India Allen? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because she's not an "adult model." That's a term with no well-defined meaning, and derogatory connotations. Per WP:CAT, categories must "be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects," a test that this amorphous characterization, with no defining criteria, clearly fails. Categories are also appropriately defined in terms of occupation, and the fact that a model has done some "glamour" work does not establish an occupation. WP:BLP requires that "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," a standard that the "adult model" category fails in this and similar cases. Finally, BLP also requires that "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation," a standard which both the title of this category and the association of mainstream models with hardcore pornographic performers violates. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely cut-n-dry definitions for categories are a rare luxury among the categories. This category, Category:American female adult models, is defined well-enough: an adult model is any model that features sexually in material that can only be sold to adults. Regardless of your interpretations of WP:CAT, the category currently exists at Wikipedia and is extensively used. I do not accept your rejection of this category as being too amorphous to use. Lastly, it is a fact that some categories have a stigma and some people do logically belong to them. This does not mean those categories should not be used. Are we to remove Category:Murderers because of its stigma? WP:BLP urges caution because you should use the categories wisely, but you are still to call a spade, a spade. That said, it's not clear to me that this category has a strong stigma, especially these days. If you harbor derogatory connotations over "adult modeling", that is your or some segment of society's prejudice. I see no obvious malice involved with including her in this category and in any case, she included herself. As far as I'm concerned: India Allen appeared in Playbody. India Allen is an adult model. This is not even a close decision. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I obviously disagree; the discussion on the recent category deletion proposal is contrary to your position, and the applicable policies/guidelines don't line up with your position. The fact that general policies and guidelines may not be followed in a particular case simply shows the need for cleanup, not an exemption from general rules -- especially when BLP is involved. Finally, I'd note that the category definition you provide here is completely different from the description you unilaterally added to the category page -- a clear signal, I'd say, that the definition is hardly as well-established as you insist. (And what would be your source for the assertion that Playboy is legally available only to adults?) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you wikilink to the discussion so I can join in? Haven't found it via Google. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you talking about this? Jason Quinn (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That's it, although it's closed now. If the subject is to be reopened, BLPN would be the appopriate place to resume. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo: can you list some of the article pages that you think do belong in this category? Tim Pierce (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been checking the articles alphabetically, the remaining A's give a reasonable set of examples. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DanniGirl TFDs

Hi, Hullabaloo. I consolidated the separate TFD nominations you created for the DanniGirl navboxes. Since the function and deletion rationale for each one is identical, it seems likely that they will either all be kept or all be deleted. If you think combining them will be a problem for some reason, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I warned you for reverting, meant to hit the ip!! --Aka042 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jazmin

what unreferenced laundry list? don't get so carried away. all of these films are published material and are verifiable sources. you inability to check them out doesn't make it unreferenced. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Category: American_female_adult_models

Although you nominated this category for deletion, the decision was Keep the category (on April 8).

I notice that since then you've removed almost 40 articles from this category. Please could you explain this action? Thanks. MissBeastly 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Miss SPA/Sockpuppet, since you've noticed the discussion, you should also be aware that no one disputed the need for substantial cleanup, or that, as another editor put it, this category stands in relation to the general model category the same way the pornographic film actors category stands to the general film actors category, and no one denied the BLP problems or the failure to conform to the general categorization policies. Now don't post here again without using your standard Wikipedia account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey there, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, MissBeastly has asked me to post here so that you can receive some wider opinions on the dispute. It appears to me that most the articles that you have removed from the category in question were placed in the category appropriately. If you believe otherwise then the best thing to do is start a discussion on the article talkpages concerning the matter, if consensus is that the article/s should be removed from the category then it can be, otherwise it should stay. You should also note that your current actions seem to be going against the consensus established here. You must establish a new consensus before trying to change the category in the way that you are currently doing so. Finally, referring to MissBeastly as a sockpuppet with out providing any evidence goes against the principal of WP:AGF, please try and stick to discussing the matter at hand. If you have evidence against them you're welcome to open an SPI case, otherwise please do not continue to accuse them of sockpuppetry. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Like I said, you're welcome to open an SPI case on it so long as you can present ample evidence. I'm not really interested in getting too involved in this matter, just wanted to offer you a third opinion. Putting the issue of any possible sockpuppetry aside, I still think that you need to reconsider your actions in regard to Category:American female adult models. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

After some lenghty discussion and investigation on IRC and wiki, MissBeastly (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of The Rusty Trombone (talk · contribs). Please note that this does not excuse your removal of articles from the category. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bhutto

Hi Hullaballoo.. I'm not seeing how this source is a Wikipedia mirror site. [48]. Any information would be welcome. Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

The very last line at the bottom of that page, in tiny print, identifies the text as the "reference article from the English Wikipedia." Not all content at allexperts.com comes from Wikipedia, but everything in the "allexperts.com/e/" portion of the site mirrors Wikipedia, though often the copies can be out of date. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed that, and I checked the Sindhi article and it seems nothing like the allexperts.com. Well, it wasn't a great source. (Grapes were probably sour anyway.)Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Atomic Tom (Band)

Hi,

You removed the speedy tag on this with the edit sum "remove speedy, includes credible claim of significance" - but am at a genuine loss to find that in the article - can you elaborate for me. (BTW have taken it to AfD.) Codf1977 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Assertion that the band is signed to a notable label. Not enough on its own to demonstrate notability, but enough, in my opinion, to require a non-speedy deletion process. There could be enough out there in the music press to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cytherea

In re this edit [49], are you sure it is not her official website? --Golbez (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be putting it back unless you respond. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It's an obvious spamlink. Anyone can claim to operate such an "official site." All the link goes to is a teaser for a paysite, with no encyclopedia-relevant content. Per WP:EL, "external links to websites that require... a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers"; official links are provided "give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself" - a standard that this link clearly fails (even if there were evidence it meets the other requirements of WP:ELOFFICIAL, which there isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

use of BLP unsourced vs. BLP refimprove

Hi, i noticed your edit which added "BLP unsourced" tag to an article that had two references (in the form of external links). Please don't apply the BLP unsourced tag in such cases. You may wish to apply {{BLP refimprove}} instead. But, i and others are working to address completely unsourced BLP articles under a deadline. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Also there is some tag which calls for adding in-line citations, which might be appropriate instead. I reverted your edit in this case. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

PPS. I removed your tags in about a dozen more articles, replacing in some cases with BLP refimprove. Please discuss. Your work tagging does basically seem helpful, but IMO more precise tagging is needed. You might want to possibly participate in one or another of the wikiprojects on BLPs, by the way. --doncram (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you're completely off base here. The template involved is quite specific, and states that no references or sources are cited. As WP:EL states. items identified as external links are not those cited as "sources supporting article content." Your approach does not enjoy consensus support; aside from the specific language of the template, I spotchecked the first two dozen or so of the many templated pages listed here [50]: for the valid listings, more than 90% would fail your standard, since they include external links sections, but no actual citations. I've used the same standards in tagging and reviewing hundreds/thousands of BLP for more than a yeat, and saw absolutely no objections to this approach until yours today, presumably because I assessed the in=practice consensus before tagging. I'm sure my tagging isn't perfect, but I think my error rate has been pretty low.

I'd also note that several of your "corrections" to my tagging are dead wrong: here[51], here[52], here[53], and here[54], you removed the refimprove tag from BLPs with substantial unsourced/unreferenced content. That's a pretty high error rate in a batch of no more than a dozen "corrections." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hi again, i didn't see your response on my watchlist, and i just happened back to check. I am glad you responded and you do sound very reasonable. I am hopeful then that we can work out some understanding quickly so we are not editing at cross-purposes.

You could have operated the way you have for a year and not gotten feedback, but during most of that period the BLP unsourced issue and tagging was not focused and defined, so I would not expect you would have gotten useful feedback on exactly this. It is true that i have come into the BLP unsourced issue relatively recently, and I concede that you probably know more about many aspects of tagging articles than i do. But it happens that i am working on the BLP unsourced issue and am focused on exactly that, am involved in discussions with others too at BLP-related pages, and I am not completely uninformed. Specifically, I have had discussions with others about IMDB as a source, and I fully understand it is not a great source for many things, but it is a source and is believed by many to be reliable for some purposes. The articles here all or almost all had an IMDB profile link, as an External link. As an external link, it is there as a source in the article and the article does not qualify for "BLP unsourced".

So, I believe my corrections are not "dead wrong". Perhaps/probably it would have been better to add "BLP refimprove" and some tag calling for inline citations, instead. Do you know the proper tag for calling for inline citations? If we could sort that out, and you would agree that BLP refimproved plus that would substitute properly in these cases, then I would agree to apply that instead and we would be able to conclude this quickly. If you really think i am dead wrong to assert that external links are sources and that BLP unsourced does not apply, then we should certainly raise this elsewhere and get others views to resolve this. --doncram (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, okay now i see you found your way to wt:URBLP, specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons#additions going on and commented there. Good. I'll watch here, but maybe we should plan to discuss out there. --doncram (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey again. I thot we had discussion towards some consensus, but i am browsing the April 2010 BLP unreferenced category and come across a new one added by you just now, in this edit. I changed it from "BLP unsourced" to "BLP refimprove" and "nofootnotes". Could you use those two tags instead, and possibly also anything else you want to use to indicate skepticism about IMDB if you wish. But, the article has sources. The sources given as external links are the sources used in creating the article, i believe. So it is not BLP unsourced. The sources are given. Discuss here or at the wt:URBLP page, pls., if you don't agree. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out, here and elsewhere, your interpretation doesn't reflect practice or consensus, and is contradicted by the express language of the tag involved. The tag has been in use for years, and there's no indication whatever that your ersatz interpretation of "cite(d)" to mean "uncited, but maybe somehow usable as a source for something somewhere in the article" holds even a drop of water. The number of users that you're disputing this point with should be a very clear signal to you that your interpretation doesn't enjoy consensus; it's way too late in the game to redefine a tag used tens of thousands of times over years of editing -- and certainly not to do so unilaterally. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, i just came across another newly-tagged-by-you article that had general references, in this version just tagged by you. I changed it from BLPunreferenced to BLPrefimprove, like the others. Hey, what's up? I did not previously see your reply above and don't get why you would be dismissing my point. I have in fact had conversations with others, ongoing again, about IMDB source reliability, etc., at wt:URBLP. But there is no rejection there by others of the basic point that IMDB or other marginal sources are in fact sources. No one but you here, i think, is rejecting that. Please apply BLPrefimprove plus any other reliability-questioning tags you wish, instead of inflating the issue of completely unsourced BLPs. I am not redefining anything unilaterally, AFAIK. Please participate in discussions at wt:URBLP, too. --doncram (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i return to thank you for your straight talking. You may have noticed my using new {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} and {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} in edits converting many "BLP unreferenced" tagged items. I converted many from April 2010 but also many from almost 3 years ago, and it does seem fairly apparent that usage has long been as you say, at least for some editors. I.e. that "BLP unreferenced" has been used to describe cases where there is IMDB and/or other references. The reason i am focused on it differently than you and others previous, now, is that i am focused on helping to meet the Wikipedia goal of having fewer than 30,000 unreferenced BLPs by June 1. I estimate that 4,000 or more articles in the original problem of 50,000 apparent back in January, were in fact IMDB-based articles where the labelling was incorrect. About 3,000 remain which i intend to relabel. I trust that by using these more specific tags helps rather than hurts in your and others' general effort to improve the referencing of these articles, and also is more logical / less confusing to many other editors who come across them. I did/do have some support from some other editors in this, at wt:URBLP, and have seen no other objections to my edits, so I am thinking this meets general approval. Thanks again for your comments. You seem to be doing very good work, by the way, from what i see of your edits in passing. Sincerely, --doncram (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nudity in music videos

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nudity in music videos. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in music videos. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation in Eastern Michigan Eagles football

You recently removed a citation from this article stating that the linked page ([55]) is a Wikipedia mirror site. I had thought it might be, but had dismissed that idea since we don't have such an article. But apparently it was speedy deleted as "blatant copyright infringement". Searching on the entire first sentence of the article yields 22 Google results ([56]), most of which are probably Wikipedia mirrors, but one of which, presumably, is the original source (because if our article was blatant copyright infringement, there had to be a source, and in my experience, 99 times out of 100, if an article is caught as blatant copyright infringement the source is online and some user just copied and pasted it). Do you have any idea which of those search results is not a Wikipedia mirror site? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I found it. cmadler (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Adult models categories

Hi, may I ask why you are removing "adult models" categories, stating that they are "inappropriate", from bios of Playmates and Page 3 girls? This edit summary says "category not supported by article text" despite multiple mentions of topless modelling.

I'd also like to encourage you to WP:archive old sections of this talk page, as it takes a long time to load. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they're not "adult models." That's a term with no well-defined meaning, and derogatory connotations. Per WP:CAT, categories must "be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects," a test that this amorphous characterization, with no defining criteria, clearly fails. Categories are also appropriately defined in terms of occupation, and the fact that a model has done some "glamour" work does not establish an occupation. WP:BLP requires that "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," a standard that the "adult model" category fails in this and similar cases. Finally, BLP also requires that "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation," a standard which both the title of this category and the association of mainstream models with hardcore pornographic performers violates. We don't categorize Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Holly Hunter, Sally Field, or Glenda Jackson as "adult movie actresses," or even Kim Cattrall, Maria Schneider, and countless B-movie performers who've done topless (or more revealing) scenes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I referred to adult model which redirects to a page including glamour photography, but it's a disambig page so evidently you are right that the term is ambiguous. It would help to add a working definition on the category pages; please check my work later. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm done -- is the expanded guidance in Template:Adult model, displayed on all relevant category pages, helpful? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work, clearer and more effective than I would have managed on my own. Thank you very much! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks good, too! Could you both possibly consider the somewhat related issue at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#WikiProject Pornography tag as a BLP issue, itself. It's about wikiproject tags on Talk pages, similar but different of course to category tags on articles themselves. I may possibly cite your good wording in that discussion. --doncram (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Audrey Kitching

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Audrey Kitching. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Kitching. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AWMDB is not a spamlink

It's not a spamlink since it holds scene-by-scene information on the biggest market of the adult industry - online media - in the same way IAFD etc hold similar information for offline media (DVD). if you wish to discuss why you are against it there a discussion, including why it holds relevent information, that has been started on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Add to the discussion there including any possible additional or better sources you can find with the same information. NathyWashington (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Complete and utter rubbish. It's just a collection of links to low-rent porn sites selling downloads. Links to retailer pages aren't allowed, and this is just an attempt to evade that antispamming rule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can find me another source that has detailed information on over 35,000 online scenes such as whether they include things such as anal,interracial,lesbian etc and who stars in the scenes then it is a source of information not covered anywhere else. I'm happy to hear about a better source to replace it but don't be so naive that these sites don't have these links. Two of the biggest databases IAFD and EBI have affiliate links to both websites and DVD sales because this is how they generate their income. Don't be so naive to assume a site with links to porn is spam and I'm pretty sure the biggest companies in online porn wouldn't be considered "low-rent porn sites" they make billions of dollars a year. If we were to remove sources based on links to places that sell stuff IAFD, EBI and all other sources would be removed and tagged as spam. If I go to Priya Rai's IAFD profile there are dozens of those kinds of links (http://www.iafd.com/gallerypage.rme/perfid=priyarai/gender=f/priya-rai-gallery.htm) NathyWashington (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Blathering doesn't make this any less spammy, or provide a shred of a case that it meets WP:RS in any other respect. And that iafd page you scrounged up wouldn't qualify as a reference, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I used that IAFD link to refute your silly statement that because it has links to paysites that it's spam. This isn't Hullaballoopedia, neither of our opinions are fact. I won't back down on what I believe is a source of information not covered elsewhere because you are on your high horse. If you have an alternative/better source for this information, for instance if you can find me another source where I can find out the exact sites and scenes that Eva Angelina does anal or Gianna Michaels does interracial then great but until you do I will continue to undo your revisions until a wider opinion has been made in the discussion. NathyWashington (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Then you'll be blocked for edit warring and general incivility. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for pornography-obsessed people with too much time on their hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lynnda Kimball

• Hey there, re your edit comment "generic external links are not cited sources," what do you mean? I saw there is a link to a detailed profile on playboy.com for this person. Its not just a link to playboy.com. The template you added says "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources," which doesn't seem accurate. Cheers--Milowent (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

An external link is not an identified source; such a listing does not specify which article content (if any) was taken from the linked page. WP:EL states that such links "are not citations to sources supporting article content." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• So take a gander at it again, that's all that was needed?--Milowent (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

PROD on List of Playboy Playmates of 1975

Okay, let me get this straight. Individual Playmate articles are being deleted as they are not notable, so as a precautionary measure, we create "List of" articles. Now you're saying we can't create them?!? Tabercil (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hank Skinner

Good evening Hullabaloo, The article about Hank Skinner is being invaded by a couple of spammers, and already the rule of the 3 reversals should go against them, they have reinserted a link of hate imitating skinner defense site. I am introducing a request of mediation. Adumoul (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you be responding?

Please tell me (at least a yes or no) if you will be responding meaningfully on the Talk page to Issues 1-10+ at Talk:Lisa Lavie#Troubling deletions. RCraig09 (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Daisy Marie

I added that Daisy's natural breast size was 32B. The source is from her own hand-written bio sheet that you can see at the bottom of the cited url. I also thought the video interview on that page would be useful as an external link to show her personality by how she answered a few questions. That link was removed when I first added it. I wasn't logged in at the time. I respectfully request that this not be considered spam. I think it is a good resource to learn more about the person. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinG123 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"unsourced gossip", via your deletion to my contribution

Hello I am just wondering as to why you deleted my contribution as "unsourced gossip". I'ts not "unsourced", infact I can supply many magazine articles, pictures and websites to confirm this. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my question and supply me a way to have these reposted so they corallate with other multimedia publications. I recently donated to wikipedia in quite a large sum and are in no way deliberatly vandalizing pages or the integrity of this site, as a moderator im hoping you can understand where I am coming from. I hope to resolve this issue with you soon, if not to contact wikipedia directly and its owners. thank you

scott storch -scst2890 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scst2890 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Image kerfluffle

Just giving you a heads-up that a large number of images have been pulled from Commons that are sexual in nature, and a number of them were later found to have been in use. I'm contacting you as you're one of the more active editors on the adult stuff here. If you could watch for red-links and give me a heads up on any that you see so I can see about restoring it, I'd appreciate it. Tabercil (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anya Verkhovskaya

Sometimes we disagree at AFDs... sometimes we agree completely. I've made some decent steps toward improving Anya Verkhovskaya. Care to assist? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rochelle Loewen: I have a copyright to this photo, please do not delete it. Maybe you can help me revise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdheinz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

First Saudi State

What was wrong about the way I referenced? But if it makes the article any better I'm with you mate. Dhulfiqar 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

SNL movies

The office space is based off shorts that appeared on the show. So it should count towards the section. Why doesnt it? Water78 (talk)

Because the source material wasn't produced by or for SNL, and didn't first appear on SNL. SNL reran it after it had been shown elsewhere. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)

Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Since I didn't know what to think of the rational for your removal of that paragraph in this edit to Nastassja Kinski, I asked for instruction on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nastassja_Kinski. I just though to drop you a note. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. Quickly resolved at BLPN, no reason for redundant comments from me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Breanne Benson

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Breanne Benson and hereby inform you about this as suggested in the PROD guide. I have added my reasons on the related talk page. Although you are obviously a highly active deletionist, I hope that you are fair enough not to straight push for an AfD especially as I have little experience here so far but followed Wikipedia:BB by creating this article of which relevance I am convinced. Naturally I will try to improve it in style and content if possible but that can't be done by just me alone and within a few days. I respectfully hope you get my point and that I am not here for fighting.

Testales (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Trent Franks. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut Sun

Well, it's not my fault that moron is vandalizing the Sun page over and over again. What do you expect me to do, have him keep messing up the page for eternity?? The things that I do is not the problem, in fact vandalizing is just as bad as sending personal attacks. I'm sorry, alright, but you need to talk to that IP user and if you are an admin, block him for life. If not, find somebody and I'm sure there will be consequences sent to that IP user.

Xavier (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)MR.Texan281

Jennifer Jason Leigh

Thanks for removing that allusion to her previous romances. I should have done it myself rather than just clarified the date, but still being somewhat new, I was gutless. It was a throwaway line in a fairly long article, and it had no flesh to it as to what happened or when.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Clint Catalyst - Question

Hi there. You're much more knowledgeable about this site than I could ever fathom being, so I hope that you please will note that I'm asking a question over an edit you made that I don't understand. In other words, I did not revert the edit you made a moment ago to Clint Catalyst's page because I have no desire in engaging in some silly "edit war"; on the contrary, I am contacting you in hopes that it's a mistake I will not make again on another page.

What confuses me is: when you removed the information I added in to the Andy Warhol section with the explanation "unsourced" and "citebreaking," I wonder if it's possible that I listed the reference incorrectly (?), because the article not only states the information I added; there's an accompanying photograph of Catalyst with the juxtaposition between Mick Jagger and him. I noticed this when editing Cory Kennedy's page (of whom the source also contains a photograph of her with her "paired likeness"), and made sure to re-phrase the information so that I wasn't plagiarizing it.

Again, I hope I've made it clear that I'm simply trying to learn. I intend no disrespect. Thank you!

Shellacious (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suppression of the Palance/Tomei Oscar incident

I moved this content from the Palance article to the 65th Academy Awards article to avoid redundancy and undue weight in the two biographies. Is it your position that the affair deserves no coverage in Wikipedia despite being covered in many reliable sources, or have you other plans for it? Best, 86.45.130.146 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You got it. Discredited rumors aren't encyclopedic, and typically violate WP:BLP. There wasn't any "incident." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an understandable position, but do you not agree that there are many noteworthy discredited rumours? To use an exaggerated example, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though discredited, are a worthy topic for encyclopedic coverage, no? By analogy, I put it to you that the Palance/Tomei rumour is worthy of a brief, well-sourced section somewhere or other.

On the BLP issue, "typically" does not imply "necessarily" so I am unsure of what you are getting at with that; the coverage of the issue in the Tomei article, which you (unintentionally?) left be seems to be well-sourced, to the point and consistent with the BLP policy. The question is, if we are going to cover it, and if readers will be going to the Awards article and the Palance article to read about it, why should there not be links? Best, 86.45.130.146 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Biel

Just wanted to remind you that you were at 3RR there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why I took the issue to AN/I, even though I didn't see any plausible justification for the disputed image use. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy Model or Adult Model

Hi You reverted my changes on Jenny McCarthy without engaging that article's talk section relevant to the edits. I created the talk section well in advance about the edits in order to discuss them. Your revision says "rv BLP violaton/issues", but on the BLP page the three core goals are

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

Generally, descriptions of Ms. McCarthy as an adult model are more neutral than calling her a model, for the reasons discussed on her article's talk page in the section I created. That characterization is also verifiable. Can you please explain how my edits violate these goals or any of the specific guidelines on BLP? Otherwise I will re-edit the article. I encourage you to respond on the Jenny McCarthy talk page where I have a section for this. Thank you. DGGenuine (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

She's not an "adult model." That's a term with no well-defined meaning, and derogatory connotations. Per WP:CAT, categories must "be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects," a test that this amorphous characterization, with no defining criteria, clearly fails. Categories are also appropriately defined in terms of occupation, and the fact that a model has done some "glamour" work does not establish an occupation. WP:BLP requires that "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," a standard that the "adult model" category fails in this and similar cases. Finally, BLP also requires that "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation," a standard which both the title of this category and the association of mainstream models with hardcore pornographic performers violates. We don't categorize Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Holly Hunter, Sally Field, or Glenda Jackson as "adult movie actresses," or even Kim Cattrall, Maria Schneider, and countless B-movie performers who've done topless (or more revealing) scenes. You should also review WP:BURDEN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Subtrivial"

"Subtrivial" isn't a word. 98.166.109.81 (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The English language has a surfeit of words you could use instead. Try trifling, picayune, insignificant, nugatory, or niggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.246.245 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Confused

I'm not sure why you reverted my addition of the BLP IMDB-only refimprove tag to the Anu Agarwal‎ article. Of course it would be ideal to include independent sources, but at the very least the IMDB link verifies that the individual exists and that she in an Indian actress. The IMDB BLP template I used puts the article into the following categories:All articles lacking sources, Articles lacking reliable references from June 2010, Articles sourced by IMDB, and BLP articles lacking sources. As there is concensus to use these tags to separate the articles that only reference IMDB from those that have no links for verification whatsoever as part of this project, could you advise whether you have an issue with the template in general, or if there is an issue with its use in this particular instance? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Read this discussion. [57] There's certainly no consensus for a small group of determined users in a Wikiproject to unilaterally redefine a tag that's been in use for years, has been placed on thousands of articles, without any broad discussion and in defiance of the objections of quite a few other uses. The only function this change serves is to help pretend the BLP problem is smaller than it is by inaccurately claiming that an article which doesn't cite any references or sources. but includes external links, actually cites references/sources. That's not a positive contribution to Wikipedia; it's not a whole lot better than just deleting the tag and moving along. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I can completely understand your objection to simply retagging articles in order to meet a deadline or goal without actually checking to see if the EL is related or supports any content. I take quite some time to go through the BLPs I come across and try to improve them by adding multiple sources instead of just retagging to lower the outstanding number of BLPs. Sometimes an EL actually can serve for basic verification (such as IMDB for very basic role info or an established sports site for athlete stat verification). I'm not trying to sway your interpretation as to how templates should be used, I was simply curious as to why you were adverse to the IMDB tag as I haven't previously run in to any opposition whatsoever to its use. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 22:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian Erix

Hi. I saw that you deleted some information off the personal life section of Ian Erix. I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia accurate and factual but in this case the information which you are referring to as gossip has been substantiated in television interviews by both parties and has been reported on by magazines, newspapers and the like numerous times. There have evem been pubic statements released by the artists involved ant there publicists so I am un-doing your revision for these resasons. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please leave this Wikipedia entry as it is. Thank you kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftlists123 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is the case, under Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons, those sources need to be cited in the article. Please also note that Erix's own blog is not an acceptable source to the extent that Erix makes otherwise uncited claims involving other living persons. The article cannot be left "as it is," as WP:BLP calls for the content at issue to be promptly removed until it is adequately sourced and includes appropriate citations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lee Camp

Don't get into an editing war with me son. You won't win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.232.230 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Noth

Hello. I feel you're going way over the line in using a talk page and edit summary to accuse another editor (not me) of vandalism when everyone is doing their best to improve a collective work. Could you do me a favour and check over WP:AGF again?--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're simply wrong. If you had bothered to check out the history of this dispute, you'd have seen that the editor you're defending is pretty clearly an SPA/sockpuppet who's already been blocked once over his editing against consensus, as well as caused semi-protection of the article; that this dispute has been going on at least since March, with no other editor supporting the inclusion of this badly sourced trivia until your edit today (although it's been removed by multiple experienced editors with roughly 90,000 edits to their collective credit (not to mention that the admin who most recently semiprotected the page has more than 100,000 on en.wikipedia alone), and you ought to have noticed that two different, contradictory references have been provided in "support" of the claim (certainly problematic in a BLP) -- one of which, classictvquotes, is a copyvio site, gives no sign of being a reliable source, and isn't used as a reference in any other Wikipedia articles. You should also have paid attention to the fact that multiple editors had removed the claim as unencyclopedic trivia, so that when you added it back without making prior efforts to gain support for its inclusion, you too were editing/edit warring against consensus. Talk about a lack of collegiality. Your own comments manifest a lack of willingness to WP:AGF about the experienced editors who've been dealing with this disruption for months. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The right place to discuss any dispute about the edit is on the article's talk page. I am grateful you're not trying to defend your use of edit summaries and talk pages to accuse other editors of vandalism. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Look again. Once again, you haven't read all the relevant comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I assure you I have read your response carefully. I think at some level my point is made with you. No one could ever defend using edit summaries or talk pages to accuse other editors attempting to make good faith edits of vandalism, because there is simply no defence for it. You're accusing me of not bothering, of edit warring, of not reading. These are exactly the kind of accusations of bad faith that I am suggesting to you have no place on a collective project, they will only destroy it.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You have very strange notions of good faith. An editor who repeatedly inserts content into an article that flat-out contradicts the sources he provides is not editing in good faith. An editor like you who violates 3RR in an edit war, then threatens the good faith editor he warred against with groundless blocking, as you did last week at BBC Radio 7, and who insists that he has the right to insert disputed content into articles unless consensus is reached to remove it, has no place in a collective project, either. Get your own behavior in order before maligning those with better understanding of the relevant policies and practices than you show. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You used edit summaries and a talk page to make inflammatory and unjustified accusations against another editor , I politely asked you to consider WP:AGF. Anything else is an issue for you--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You also gave strange ideas about politeness, too. After several months of abusive editing against consensus, and repeated insertion of text that contradicted the cited sources, the assumption of good faith was no longer warranted towards a user who was, as you deliberately ignored editing through multiple account/IPs and blocked for inapropriate editing practices, and your comments also unjustifably malign by implication the other editors involved in contesting the disruptive editing. It's clear that good faith, as it's geneally understood, is a foreign notion to you. Don't post to my talk page again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barbi Twins

Hey there.

This is kinda complicated. First off, User:AnneBank is not one of the Barbi Twins nor an official representative for them. Just wanna make that clear.

I've been working with the Twins since November on a fairly regular basis on explaining Wikipedia and how it works, as well as how we can properly assure the accuracy of their biography. So here's the sticky part: that edit about Sia being rumored to be gay from E True Hollywood story is one that they want included. They took a part in the production of that documentary, and made a point to have it included.

Now, obviously we can't just include the information as worded, and we're not one to drive rumors. I'm asking, in your opinion, is there a way that you can see to make this inclusive material? I recuse my own opinion on the matter since I'm just serving as the middle-man, so I'd appreciate your opinion so it can be passed along in the explanation of yes or no.

Thanks for your time! Keegan (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I find this a bit troubling, at least as stated. If Sia Barbi decides to make a public statement of her sexual preferences, that's appropriate to include. But including an acknowledged rumor simply because the article subject wants it included, but refuses to verify it, isn't appropriate, whatever her reasons may be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Noth

I see you have been given a hard time by a contributor to Chris Noth. You have my every support. I had a particularly nasty and unprovoked run in with this individual a couple of months ago. He/she is a raw beginner who insults mature, regular editors and mainly resorts to righteous indignation in defence of his/her behaviour. I may be completely wrong, and I hope I am, but I also had a suspicion at the time that there may be some socketry involved--Kudpung (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're an admin but two other admins are watching my edits - in use template up

The In use template is up. Please respect it. Please revert yourself. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Note that you've had this template up for significantly longer than the associated page indicates it should be up for (180 minutes), and that you've added spurious promotional content to the article, violating BLP. WP:BLP is a fundamental policy, and certainly overrides the quite unofficial "courtesy" guideline associated with the template. I'd also note that you showed no courtesy to me yesterday by reverting, without explanation or apology, an entirely appropriate, indeed required, edit I'd made to the same article, rather than revising your own planned edit after an edit conflict. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It has been up for awhile and is allowed. You have violated the template. You are now approaching WP:3RR with your reverts----moreno oso (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

One more time. The comments accompanying the template are neither policy nor guideline, and are entirely unofficial. WP:BLP is policy. If the comments have any force, they show that you're abusing the template by keeping it up for longer than the 180 minute maximum. And your recent edit history also indicates you're abusing the template since you're not steadily working on the article, but multitasking, watching the World Cup, posting on other subjects, etc. And removing obvious BLP violations is an exception to 3RR, and if you think anybody's going to treat removing an internal mislink as contributing to a 3RR violation you're badly mistaken. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

BS and you know it. I am not abusing the template. There is no BLP violation as everything is cited and not negative. You need to read the talkpage about Wikipedia not being censored. ----moreno oso (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You badly need a refresher in both WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, especially since the latter quite plainly states that its removal requirements apply "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not fuelling, but determined not to allow WP:GAME to become a sanctuary. Kudpung (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

john gray

stop being such a cockass

gray 4 mayor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebugeja (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Shyla Foxx

No problem. I figured that there was something obvious that I was missing and that removing it again would be the safe option plus would trigger someone to sort of tie it all together. In the end, there's nothing to tie together. Dismas|^(talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"pony theory"

While it's an amusing "theory" and it's nice to see even a cite for it, it's perhaps in bad taste to bring it up in AfDs as an accusation against those making apparently poor keep arguments, I think. For that matter, the tenor of your other comments in at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards (where I tend to agree with you and the nom that notability is not established, etc.) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Jordan is questionable. Just a thought, no reply needed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Melissa-Ashley

Could you possibly give your opinion on this debate Talk:Melissa-Ashley#Un-encyclopedic_Content ? Thanks... Valrith (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

/* Joe Francis Wikipedia Page */

Hello,

Can you please provide reason as to why you undid the changes on Joe Francis' wikipedia page when reliable sources were provided? Thank you AEB1275 (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the edit summaries. Just because you can source it doesn't justify spamming entire product lines in tangentially related articles. Aren't you the newest incarnation of the corporate role account User:Mantrafilms? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Linda Reade, Rubashkin

I personally feel that the Rubashkin trial is an important part of Reade's story. How would you suggest the story should be told? Im surprised you removed the whole section. Lower458 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As per my comments at WP:BLPN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Saw now Lower458 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me run this by you, would this be acceptable according to BLP rules?

On June 21 2010, Judge Reade sentenced former Agriprocessors CEO Sholom Rubashkin, a first time offender, to 27 years in prison for fraud. The "stiff" sentence was unusual in recent history of financial crimes, and was more than the sentence prosecutors had requested, 25 years. prompting complaints from the Orthodox Jewish community that Mr. Rubashkin was singled out and treated unfairly by Judge Reade.

Lower458 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's one-sided (not all the responses to the sentence have been critical, although the critical responses have been played up in the sources you cite); "some Orthodox Jewish leaders" aren't "the Orthodox Jewish community". The "first offender" comment is at best disingenuous, given that he was convicted of 86 counts of fraud committed over an extended period of time -- some would quite reasonably describe him as a "career criminal" in that regard. And I don't see any support in your sources for the "singled out" statement -- the information provided is just as consistent with Reade being a judge who hands down harsh sentences. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See what I updated at Reade page. I think it is pretty good and within rules.

Removed references to his age and first-time-offender.

BTW, it is a fact that the OJ community was very outspoken re the sentence, but it was not covered in any credible media as of yet. Maybe in the future.

Thanks for coaching me here.

00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs)

The revision still fails BLP rather seriously; it's conspicuously one-sided. BLP and NPOV require that all sides of a disputed matter be presented reasonably; this edit omits all praise of Reade's action (even though some was provided in news sources), nor does it present any of Reade's justification for the sentence, for which both primary and secondary sourcing should be easy enough to find. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Maybe what Im trying to say, and I am, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lower458 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Noth

Do an SPI on 70.19.231.165 ? --Kudpung (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't need an SPI, this is plainly WP:DUCK as well as block evasion. But not worth wasting admin time unless/until he shows up again.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sovietia/Archive --Kudpung (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Tony Fox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Seven Minutes (film)

I'm leaving an identical message for all the parties involved in the edit war (Dekkapai, MichaelQSchmidt, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) on this article advising them to take their disagreements on the notability of the nudity in the film to the talk page. All parties involved appear to have valid points so I'm not singling anyone out for possible WP:3RR violations. In the interim, I'm locking the page as is for 72 hours - hopefully by the time the block expires we might have some form of consensus. Remember, the question (as I understand it) is whether the nudity in this film was notable in and of itself. If it is not, then might the information about it be useful elsewhere - say in Nudity in film as expanded details about the 70s. Tabercil (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review

...this diff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

user:Susieq3140 and award insertions

Hello, I noticed you reverted a couple of this user additions to sport articles about these awards. Like you, I feel this is spammy and believe if the user can't find third party coverage of this, then it should be removed. To be honest, the fact that this user's body of work is adding this to countless articles is most bothersome to me (just look at the user contributions). I went ahead and spent some time doing mass reversions, but met some resistance from other users (see [58], [59]).

I'm wondering what your thoughts are. Should this be taken to wp:ani? It seems like a rather gray-ish area. I know sports pretty okay and have never heard of this organization or these awards, and all signs show that it's a borderline notable organization

Thank you for your time. If you have no desire to get involved, I understand. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - an admin has gone in and reverted all the user's edits. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Having investigated this further, all of Special:Contributions/Susieq3140's edits appear to be for the sole purpose of promoting these "awards" form the US Sports Academy, using a "third party" reference to a domain owned by the same place. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought was going on, but with other editors disputing Omarcheeseboro's reverts, I was waiting for other folks to get involved in the discusions. I think the school's apparently unauthorized use of various deceased public figures' names for the awards is a bit sleazy, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also tracked down an AfD from a few years back (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Sports Academy) that led to the deletion of a number of articles about the awards themselves; the conclusion was that the awards were not notable. (The nom asserted that "there was no evidence that the 'recipients' were aware of or accepted the 'honorary degrees'".) --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive

As a matter of extreme urgency, will you please archive at least 90% of this page. I can recommend the use of the MiszaBot. OK, disk space is cheap these days but there is still no need for every message to gobble up 300k bytes on Wikipedia's servers. More importantly, please spare a thought for users with slow connections or creaky old browsers - why should they have to deal with such a ridiculously large page? — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on source reliability/notability

Hi. I've started a discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks.

David Cameron

Hi, I don't know if you've noticed but, along with at least four other editors, I've been trying to prevent a fellow anonymous user (92.28.129.178 (talk · contribs) 89.240.160.15 (talk · contribs)) blanking, and arguably vandalising, two pages. Could you perhaps look again at this [60] reversion? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that all those ancestry subsections do nothing but make it more difficult for readers of the article to get to useful information, and that a large picture of somebody who died a few centuries before any of the events discussed in the article makes a bad situation even worse. But then, I'm of Irish descent and think all the articles about so-called British "nobles" belong in the category "Useless products of inbreeding." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, these sections are kind of a convention in the tertiary source material that Wikipedia follows but I agree the portrait of William IV was rather unnecessary. Also, if you check the history I'd removed a lot of the rubbish. Nevertheless, your reversion restored this vandal's version, complete with messy links (plus I do not, ever, disrupt Wikipedia to make a point). --188.221.105.68 (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010 uw-unsourced3

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [61] Dugnad (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Dignity

Could you please explain why you think what was removed in your edits to Dignity (album) was original research? The background section discusses events that happened and the composition section discusses songs that reference them. That is far from OR. –Chase (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Kascha listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kascha. Since you had some involvement with the Kascha redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Gentlemen AfD

Just wanted to let you know that the AfD discussion on Virginia Gentlemen is underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Gentlemen; could use your input. -Tjarrett (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

LIGHTS (musician)

I would like to understand your reasoning in reverting my edit. LIGHTS full legal name is hardly unconstructive. Pick just about any celebrity on Wikipedia and you will see their full legal name. This is important due to confusion that LIGHTS is a stage name. Her full name has three unique sources in the article. Nblsavage (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The form you insist on is not her legal name, according to sources cited in the article. So don't put it back. You're edit warring to the edge of vandalism. There's some conflict about exactly what her legal name is, so it certainly be asserted without a definitive source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Kevin Young. "Looking Into Lights". Canadian Musician Magazine Volume 63 Issue 3. http://www.canadianmusician.com/online-mar-apr-10/index.php. - "

"though she's changed her name to Lights Valerie Poxleitner"

Barring legal documents, what type of source is sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblsavage (talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Warren G. Harding

Thanks for undoing the revision. I am not sure why the user was so savage in the edit summary. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rocco Siffredi genital herpes

What is the BLP rule preventing the Rocco Siffredi article from disclosing that Siffredi has genital herpes? He admits this fact publicly, at it is relevant to his career as a sexual performer. Thanks! --Stybn (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Claims of this nature must be reliably sourced. Per Jimbo Wales, the Luke Ford site does not meet BLP standards for reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Luke Ford is considered a reliable source in the porn industry, it seems noteworthy in and of itself that Ford has reported this information. Can the article mention the existence of the report? --Stybn (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DrV

In the AfD for Stephano_Barberis your !vote is being discussed at DrV [62]. Any clarification from you would be helpful. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

incivility?

I think if you revisit your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination) you might find your tone problematic and unproductive. Incidentally, I missed seeing that AfD while it was open and would have been inclined to add a comment in favor of deletion had I caught it. No reply needed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi HW. Please accept my sincere apology regarding the notice I previously posted in this space (which you have already removed). I was operating under the mistaken belief that you had added the text in question, rather than removed it. Clearly your edit was correct, and I should have been more careful. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

AskMen.com

Hi. I noticed this message an IP editor left on another IP's talk page, and tracked it back to the edit he was referring to. Is there consensus that Ask.com is not reliable under WP:RS? I only found one brief discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and there was some disagreement on it. What's your view? Nightscream (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any consensus either way, but the argument made in the linked discussion, against its reliability, is pretty sound. Certainly that Barbara Bush quote is quite dubious, particularly since there are no legit hits for it turning up via GNews. I wouldn't use Askmen.com as a refeence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to add information to the 'lingerie line' section of Caprice's page as it is currently very short and does not reflect the last four and a half years that she has spent building her business. All info is accurate and verifiable. It is not intended to have a promotional tone, merely to reflect the growth of the business over several years and supply up-to-date information to the public about Caprice's shift from model to entrepreneur and the growth of her business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura154154 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Guide Protection

I was thinking it would be a good idea to add a protection policy to Saturday Night Live, i have noticed an increase of vandalism on the front page of the show. Possibly semi-protection would be best, what are your thoughts?

Water78 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea

I had the same thought about Ed Cox and David Eisenhower's articles - I was just going over there to see how they're worded when I saw your comment on the noticeboard! Well said. Tvoz/talk 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ivanhoe Bus Company

Curious as to what claim of significance you noticed... As an aside, kinda ironic, based on comments here, that you're removing CSD tags. Lionel (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharron Angle

I saw this. It appears that the subject "scrubbed" her website. I wil try to find a cite. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare confusion

I'm really confused as to why you've gone after my edits so strongly. Cassandra Clare is absolutely notable for her Fan Fiction, it's how she became a published author in the first place. As far as I know this has never been disputed before. I've reverted the majority of your changes and added a boatload of published sources. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss about this page? I'd be happy to clarify anything else amiss. Infoaddict1 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you've added the second BLP tag, without clarifying why you think my Lexus Nexus sources are "phony", I've put in a request for editor assistance & mediation. If you have the time to tell me why you believe specific sources are suspect, I would appreciate it. Most all the pages I've sourced are publicly available, and I can provide copies of each article if you don't have access. Thanks! Infoaddict1 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already responded to specific claims on your talk page. If you think a twitter page which doesn't have any relevant content is a reliable source asserting a romantic relationship between two notable authors, or that livejournal posts are appropriate sources for unfavorable blp content, you are seriously mistaken. You're a single purpose account with an unhealthy focus on a particular person, and you acknowledged not very long ago on the BLP noticeboard that the sourcing you have doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. You should have stopped then. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I used a twitter account because someone before me had already used a twitter account to verify information about Clare; since the relationship isn't a secret (and he isn't a well known author), and Clare has noted her character is based on her boyfriend (which I cited from her official journal) I thought it was okay. If this is wrong, you are absolutely within your wiki rights to remove that bit of information. However a reversion of multiple sources, including io9, The Age, Mail on Sunday, The Telegraph and the 2-3 scholarly journals is not an appropriate response. As I've stated before, I am a NEW EDITOR, and I don't have a lot of experience with BLP. I have constantly asked for help on this, but from you have received only attacks, which I don't understand the purpose of. If you would join us on the CC discussion page to point out your qualms with specific citations, I'd really appreciate it. I'm also not clear on why you regard CC's fan fiction past as being "embarrassing" and in need of removal on vandalism charges. CC found her fame via her well-known fan fiction; Diablo Cody found her fame via her stripping blog, but that stripping blog is now years old. Does that mean it is irrelevant to her Wikipedia page? Surely not. I'd like to hear your side of it though. Infoaddict1 (talk) 06:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare

Hello, there is currently a content dispute at this article and I'd like to see if an agreement can be reached. Since you are a recent contributor to the article, I'd like to ask if you wish to give your opinion on the matter. I'm not involved in the article myself, I'm only interested in trying to bring everyone to a discussion. If you're interested, please comment at this thread, thank you. -- Atama頭 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Veronika Zemanová

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Veronika Zemanová, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cocteau Twins image

Hi, I'm willing to be corrected and to see the image deleted if policy requires, but you removed a non-free image from Cocteau Twins with the edit summary "non-free image in BLP infobox". An article about a band is not a BLP. I restored the image but am bringing it to your attention in good faith in case the relevant policy is wider than stated in your edit summary. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeanine Mason image

I'm curious to know precisely how the image I uploaded for Jeanine Mason fails fair use. Although I acknowledge you seem to be quite a stickler-- when it suits you, at least, excuse me for reading most of your talk page --you seem to have very nonchalantly removed this picture, despite it being from a promotional package and therefore clearly valid under fair use. Please explicate. (Also, congratulations: editing your talk page slows my computer to almost hilarious speeds.) Andrew Hsieh, Random Wikian 07:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Passing fair use isn't enough; it has to pass WP:NFCC, which it clearly doesn't. This is an image of a living person, and presumed replaceable. The fact that it shows a dancer dancing is not enough to meet NFCC; otherwise nonfree images of actors acting, of golfers golfing, of singers singing, of porn performers, er, performing would also be NFCC exceptions, and they're obviously not. The primary purpose of an infobox image is identification, for which nonfree images are almost never necessary; I don't think a nonfree BLP infobox image has ever survived an NFCC challenge. And, as in all NFCC matters, the WP:BURDEN rests with the editor seeking to use nonfree content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm

What did you do to piss this temporary editor off? Drmies (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the sense of "humor" shown by the username, he's probably the Howard Stern fan-troll I ticked off last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

William Asher - explanation request

Your deletion explanation was a bit too brief, IMO: "patently invalid rationale provided." The image did have a rationale stated, although short, yet to the point. However, it does not deserve a rapid, almost bot-like, re-deletion without some due consideration.

Part of the rationale for the image was given:

"Historical value as this photo appears to be a candid during the peak of his career."

The man is 89 years old and supposedly not in good health. Therefore, it seems reasonable, if not logical, that it meets one of the "acceptable uses" of a non-free image for a BLP such as #8, since both people were were discussed within the article, mostly during their career, it supports an acceptable usage with obvious relevance:

"Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary."

Since you're apparently relying on the reason why it might be "unacceptable," as in #1, I was using the clearly stated "exception" to that rule:

"However, for . . . retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

So I agree to some minds the decision here could be based on a coin toss, as the image could be justified as acceptable or not. But I personally don't think the BLP, especially an important one in the entertainment industry, warrants a brusque summary only. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

1. 8 clearly doesn't apply here, because the commentary must relate to the specific image, not to its subjects generally. #1 clearly doesn't apply here, because the article subject's notability doesn't rest in any part on his physical appearance. There's no indication that this is a publicity photo; it's an unidentified photo found in an unofficial and may well be owned by a commercial publication. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that helps. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Jenny Slate

I've just expanded and referenced this article so this is just a historical note, but you removed an addition about her hosting a comedy night, stating "unreferenced addition to blp". Sure, it was unsourced, but it wasn't likely to be controversial and a look in Google News for "Jenny Slate" AND "Big Terrific" would have very quickly shown that it was correct. Reverting all unsourced additions keeps articles "pure", but it also keep them from developing, which some quick fact checking would avoid. Fences&Windows 00:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Hassan Barzideh

As an established user I definitely trust your knowledge and good faith, but there's still a bit of a problem here. Even if the subject is notable, the article, as it was written, definitely did not indicate that it is, or why. Furthermore, as an unsourced BLP, it would be subject to WP:PRODBLP even if undeleted. I'm not seeing any versions of the article in its history that address either of these problems. Lastly, the article contained so little information that if it were recreated in a manner that addressed these issues, it would be virtually just as easy to remake from scratch as from the scant information this article contained. I hope this makes sense to you. If I'm missing something, let me know. - Vianello (Talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The above stands for pretty much every one of the string of deleted articles, so far as I can tell. - Vianello (Talk) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense to me. I doubt that any of the articles would be subject to PRODBLP; they appear to all belong-standing articles, predating the current, stricter referencing requirements, and not subject to the PRODBLP process. Even given the article's deficiencies, it still had an assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, which is all that's required to avoid summary deletion. As the ANI discussion indicates, there's good reason to believe that one of the nominator's motives was to harass an editor who was working to improve inadequate articles/biographies in the category the nominator targeted. I don't see any reason these apparent out-of-process deletions shouldn't be undone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You may very well be right about the questionable motivation, and you are definitely right about PRODBLP - I completely had forgotten about the date/timing issue. However, I'm not sure I see where in the articles themselves notability is/was asserted. - Vianello (Talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Notability doesn't have to be asserted to survive A7, only the lower standard of significance. A7 deletion should not be applied to "any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source," which "is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." (from WP:SPEEDY). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Understandable. Could you give me an example of how these illustrated significance, though? So far as I could see, every last article was limited entirely to "This person is an (occupation).", with the occasional addition of where they were educated. I don't see (and this may be a failure on my part) how significance of any kind was asserted. - Vianello (Talk) 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In the cases I've looked at (both deleted and rejected noms), the occupation was one which signalled potential notability and therefore asserted significance. Hassan Barzideh is a film director, an occupation which is often notable, and for which categories are recognized. Fouzieh Majd is a composer who created work for a national television network. Babak Esmaeili is a published author and journalist. Asad Sabetpour was a provincial governor and mayor of a modertately large city. I'm not sure how many more there were deleted, but these are fairly illustrative, and I think it would be better to roll back the entire set. My impression is that the genuinely not-notable subjects had already been removed from the targeted category through the work of users reviewing the area. I also found it curious that so many of the targeted cultural figures were Sufi-related, and so few of the government-related figures were supporters of the post-revolutionary regime. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You've made a fair point. I've restored all the articles you listed except Hassan Barzideh, which does not indicate any sort of significance. Being "a film director" is something any number of people can lay claim to. Being a remotely noteworthy one is an entirely different issue. The others, by virtue of their careers or other statuses/accomplishments, do appear to assert some form of significance, though, so I've restored them as per your request. - Vianello (Talk) 02:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave G. Dotterer

G12, yet. Have you seen the deletion record? I was gonna PROD based on the assertion of significance-- national level board. You got in ahead of me with a G12. Will see what happens. I do wish the campaign mangers would read up on WP:politician before putting themselves through the aggravation. cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Celebs with criminal records

Point taken but it did sound strange the way it was phrased. Dismas|^(talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob Gill pic

I explained the fair use rationale to Betacommandbot already. The man's career ended in 1974. There is a limit to how far one can go to attempt to illustrate how a man appeared during the relevant period of his life, especially when that period is over 35 years gone. Summary removal of the image without even trying to contact the editors of the page does not help fix the issue. DarkAudit (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hustler magazine link at Lisa Coleman

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Hustler magazine as a source please. Tabercil (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

This edit by an anonymous account done directly after your edits in support of them appears to be the most transparently clear of sockpupperty that has ever existed.

I'm posting this here because I want to hear an explanation from you about this before I take it to Wikipedia administration. You deserve a fair hearing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. Any cursory glance at either my talk page, my contributions or both will easily reveal that I'm a long-time IP editor that eshews the use of an account. Just because two or more editors undo your edits (and point you to the proper policy page) doesn't mean they are related. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I ask Hullaballoo Wolfowitz a question, and then you respond instead of him or her.

I politely ask you to sit back and think to yourself, "How does this look." If I am to be persuaded that you two are not sockpuppets, the fact that you both act as one and respond as one on talk pages is not going to persuade me. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of "polite," since it includes gratuitous and groundless accusations of misbehavior. When multiple editors reverse your actions citing rather clear policy, it indicates that you are in error, not that you are the target of misconduct. And you have no excuse for defying WP:3RR. As for your threat to "take it to Wikipedia administration": Bring. It. On. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:SPI is the page you want. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't break 3RR, you did.

And I have not been reverted by "multiple editors". I've been reverted by you and you alone (in the case of the Bloomberg article), and you coupled with a suspicious anon (in the French pop artist's case).

And I didn't threaten anything, I asked politely for you to explain this situation. You are either unable or unwilling to do so.

If you were not a sockpuppet, then I would have expected you to calmy and rationally post here referring to your past edits. But the exact opposite happened.. I see that anon is commenting at nearly the same time as you, and also making the same arguments as you like clockwork-- when I asked you something and said nothing to the anon. Yet anon spoke for you?! Anon has posted on your talk page for you?! You have to understand that this is giving me the exact same impression as writing "I am using sockpuppets" in all caps.

Besides, your tone is very, very unhelpful to what are content disputes that we could resolve if you would behave more responsibly. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the 3RR

I could report you for this, but I won't if you would- for one- stop to actually make a valid argument for your edits on a talk page.

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. The main text was cut-and-pasted from a news site. That is a copyright violation. Removing copyright violations is exempt from 3RR, as is removal of BLP violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored.

It'll probably still have to go through AFD, but I suppose it was a rather unclear speedy deletion. Sorry about that, · Andonic ^Contact 08:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary removal of images

Please stop removing images as you did in the articles Joseph Wapner & Jorge Ortiz de Pinedo. First of all, those images you removed are free images & have fair use rationales as approved by WP:Fair use. Also, we do not remove such images except in the case of vandalism, or unless there is already a free image of that person on Wikipedia--That is certainly a no-no. It is very important that you review WP:Fair use before you remove any other images. You may also discuss this change in the article's Discussion Page & wait for a concensus before you make the edit.

-MegastarLV (talk) 5:54 August 2010

Absolutely not. Those are obviously not free images; in fact, you identified them as nonfree when you uploaded them, and the use rationales you provided fail most of the relevant 10-point test -- as you were warned barely two weeks ago by administrator Theleftorium. Under WP:NFCC, challenged images are to be removed from articles pending discussion; the burden of proof rests with those seeking to the users, if any, objecting to removal: It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. You are at risk of being blocked for this pattern of misbehavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Theleftorium was referring to three images that I uploaded on one article 2 weeks ago--that was then. I also notice the numerous complaints people have posted on your talk page, as well as various users questioning you regarding this same issue (this gives me an obvious hint). And if you think the rationale I provided is invalid, how would a valid one look like to you?

-MegastarLV (talk) 7:04 August 2010

I suggest that you thoroughly review the applicable policy and guideline pages, beginning with WP:NFCC. As I pointed out in comments you removed from your talk page, there can be no valid use rationale for the disputed images, because you seek to use them in violation of NFCC policy regarding images of living persons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would I "seek to use them in violation" if I'm not intending to violate anything (though it could be an accident)? What kind of person are you?

-MegastarLV (talk) 7:25 August 2010

Just stop the personally directed innuendo and review the policy, guidelines, and related pages. With all the warnings about NFCC policy you've received from multiple users, you should be aware of the problems with your editing. I csn't say it any more plainly than I did in the comments you removed from your talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT EDIT MY INFO PLEASE

please do not change the edits i made to some pornstars pages yesterday. all of the info as far as their birth names is correct and widely available on IMDB.com, you can go check for yourself. as far as some of the other info you removed i really don't have a problem with it, some of it was dubious/silly, and i'll admit i made some unnecessary edits on 1 or 2 pages but the birth names are all CORRECT info so please do not change them back again. if you do i will just keep reverting them back (i have alot of time on my hands and it will be no problem for me)

P.S. - the middle names of 2 of the pornstars i corrected are not on IMDB however they are correct. they are from a forum which is no longer online and the other was said in a movie i watched (yes, i'm a fan of porn, i'm assuming you are also). i apologize if i sound rude but i'm a little annoyed that you went and removed all the data i took the time to look up and enter. again, if you change anything i will constantly revert back the correct info i entered so please leave it the way it is so we don't have to let this get out of hand, thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummy Dummy (talk • contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Jenna Haze

Please let me know what's your point to say my edit on Jenna Haze's article is spam. I'm adding a new award she just won. I'm not using as source the Fame Registry site since it is a new annual Award. I gave a 3rd party reliable source (XBiz) giving coverage to the Fame Registry Awards. If you don't know it, XBiz is one of the biggest sites for adult news. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not an independent "3rd party" source. It's a corporate press release. It says "COMPANY PRESS" right under the headline. One of the reasons Xbiz is such a large site is that it incorporates a porn industry equivalent to PR Newswire. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it is a press release, but that fact doesn't change that XBiz is giving coverage to the Awards and they are not related to the Fame Registry site. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

XBiz is part of a PR/marketing operation, and they host their clients' press releases and other PR. [63] That's about as related as you get. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what a press release and XBiz are, and we both know that XBiz and Fame Registry are different sources. Yes it is a press release so Fame Registry is being XBiz's client in this case, but it is XBiz who decides the deal to accept to post a press release or not. By posting this press release, XBiz is also accepting give coverage to the Fame Registry Awards. Also you call XBiz a "flak". XBiz is a legitimate reliable source for adult news, you like it or not. And Btw, you labeled my edit not only once but twice as spam. I'm obviously not spamming anything. That's just not right of you. Purplehayes2006 (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and Tea Partiers

This is concerning the Newsweek quote concerning Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Movement. I understand that Newsweek is considered by some to be a "reliable source". In fact, I usually would as well. However, just take a look at the quote:

"Tea partiers are driven by the belief that the America that elected Barack Obama isn't their America, and Beck comforts them by telling them they're right: that the America they love, the America they now feel so distant from, the America of faith and the Founders and some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past, is still there, waiting to be awakened from Obama's evil spell. And he flatters them by saying that the coastal elites are too stupid or too lazy to figure out what's really going on; only his loyal viewers are perceptive enough to see the truth and, ultimately, to save the nation."

First of all, this author BEGINS by somehow reporting what is in the minds of members of the tea party. Then he continues by somehow knowing that their motivation is by flattery? How does the author gain this insight into the minds of Tea Partiers? Then the author speaks of Tea Partiers wanting to go back to "some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past" and being against "Obama's Evil spell". This is clearly a mocking tone. How can you possibly consider this quote to be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smpf38 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the quote is "neutral" is a red herring. It's included in the article as represeenting a nontrivial range of opinion concerning Beck, and it does that reasonably well. NPOV requires that the article as a whole be balanced, not that it be neutered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It does not do it well. Look at the other factual information above and below the Newsweek quote. This quote doesn't fit there. It throws the information under the heading of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement out of balance. Each subheading should have balance as well as the overall article. Furthermore, the quote simply is not a well orchestrated opinion from the Newsweek author because he pretends to know what is going on in the minds of all kinds of different individuals and does so in a mocking tone. Surely you can see that. Smpf38 (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely I deny that. The comments that you see as "pretending to know" is limited to the opening clause, where it's a fair and reasonably neutral summary of a view that's been prominently stated by tea-partiers. The material you describe as "mocking" relates instead to Bweck's own commentary, and relates only to what he says, not his supposed state of mind. And it's mainstream analysis, milder than (say) Stewart or Olbermann. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea partiers talk about "Leave it to Beaver"? Who in the tea party? And when has Glenn Beck called coastal elites "stupid or lazy"? Smpf38 (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadaf Munir

I assume that this is the page you meant, since Sadif Munir doesn't exist. Your removal of the speedy template was incorrect since there is no assertion that she meets the relevant guideline, in particular Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.... Even if she is notable, the article is written like spam (which is the other reason I gave in my deletion edit summary), and is an unsourced biography of a living person (the "references" are spam and do not support the claims made). It stays deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
On a page called i've introduced a new controversy section(backed by very powerful sources) on All India Trinamool Congress, some users've reverted my edits claiming my sources as unreliable ones(but as per wikipedi's policy they are powerful). I've posted an RSN, which didnt suite one user Active Banana(he has roll back rights). So he had roll backed my RSN. Now I am confused what to do. Please tell me whether the following sources are OK or not:

Main Story on AITC-Maoist Nexus in Mail Today
Story in CNN IBN

Both of them are very well known Newspapers/Tv channels of India.
Please help quickly in the matter. Please reply soon.
Basuupendra (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Award nominees

Is there a consensus that all Tony Award nominees meet WP:ENT or are otherwise notable? I'm willing to believe there could be and I just don't know it. If so, maybe that could be added to WP:ENT which seems awefully barebones for a guideline anyway. Novaseminary (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: DePROD

You're telling me he is notable enough to merit hundreds of articles about his films, a good majority of them being unsourced and without mention in any reliable sources (at least, I have 10 of them so far)? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

D.W. Griffith? Yes, I am. Just because you haven't turned up sources doesn't mean they don't exist. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. You can't tell a suspect "You're guilty of murder!" on the basis that there may be evidence against him. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Your second de-PROD: Please provide a source then, because I cannot find any mention of a Variety article on this film. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Look more carefully. [64]

Still need a page number. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to ruin the work done here; but until you give valid sourcing, all of the articles created which are not notable do not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia (but I know you know that). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material in Madison Young

I noticed you deleted a large amount of material on this article. Unfortunately, I see that much of it had been reliably sourced- for example, you added tags for citations being needed on assertions that, before your edit, were cited to reliable sources, such as the website of the production company that bought the rights to the movie she was interviewed in, pictures taken by Life magazine, and the major source for the article, a book by Brian Alexander which provided her real name and interests. I have restored all material that was sourced reliably, in addition to toning down some of the advertising-like statements. Try not to pull the trigger quite so fast next time? Full-page excerpts from the book that confirmed the material in the article were an immediate top ten hit on Google Books. Thanks. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 02:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_August_31

Just reality checking - do my arguments that the original 2nd AfD nom was invalid (fishing expedition), and the post-close flip mandates a no-consensus, hold any water? Noooobody responded to that. --Lexein (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of image question

Could you please explain why you removed the image at my draft page User:Lefteh/Paula_Brooks? Lefteh (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was an obvious violation of the nonfree images policy, which prohibits the use of nonfree images as general/identifying images in BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Per character images in List of The Sopranos characters

Re [65]: We do not permit the usage of per character images on "List of" type articles. There's been several, several debates about this in the past. The practice is to restrict such usage to a primary cast photograph (example, and/or to restrict usage of per character images to crucial, central characters. By the very definitions in the sections listed, the images were being used on secondary characters.

The argument you're using of there being substantial content has been used before and failed. The reality here is these are not central characters. Further, the content in these sections is almost completely unreferenced. Wikipedia insists on reliance on secondary sources in order to maintain neutrality. This is not a fan site. Including such large, undocumented sections in an article isn't within our guidelines. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). So these "lengthy" sections do not belong, unless secondary sources can be found to support them. It's massive overkill in writing about these characters. It's not enough to just have content. You have to have well sourced content. You're unlikely to get such lengthy content for a secondary character.

If you disagree with this, I strongly suggest you take the issue up at either WP:NFCR or WT:NFC. Do not restore the images; doing so violates policy and guideline. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I wanted to amplify on this a bit. I came by this article by way of Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing an unusually high number of non-free files. This particular article ended up at #55 as of today, making the top 100 of articles on Wikipedia containing a high number of non-free files, or looking at it another way the top .003% of all articles here in terms of use of NFCC content. To get on that list in a guideline/policy appropriate way takes a very exceptional case with very strong justification. If "List of characters" type articles are such an exceptional case where this usage is permitted, then that database report should show many such articles in the top 100, yet it doesn't. The reason for that is simple; we don't permit this sort of usage. Also note that List of characters from The Sopranos in the Lupertazzi crime family, List of characters from The Sopranos – friends and family and List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family contain zero non-free images. If you think this special case should be allowed, again please take up the issue at WP:NFCR or WT:NFC. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rosa Scarcelli

Oh I'll definitely restore that image unless you can provide some better rationale. I'm only posting here first in the interested of preventing an edit war. Your assumption that it is "obvious" does not qualify. Licensing has been clearly cited in the article and I will happily point you in the direction of the promotional press material it was included in if you insist on being obtuse and arbitrary. Lahnfeear (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• You know what, forget it. I'll dig up another photo I have tomorrow that wasn't from press material which looks nearly identical to this and was taken by a private citizen. I have zero interest in discussing it with you.Lahnfeear (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Hello mate. Just letting you know that a new user (Perthmonsit) is undoing all your recent edits. Could he be a sock puppet of someone you know perhaps? Jevansen (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Is this better? I keep forgetting to change the edit summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taral Wayne.
Message added 04:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

J.G. Quintel

Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, the last person who undid the redirect had no problem with me redoing it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Rafe Mair image

I was given permission to use it by Mr. Mair himself. Prescottbush (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Sal the Stockbroker PITA

Would you like me to semi-protect your userpage? Enigma^msg 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Ryden

Both User:1exec1 & User:WikiTome have looked at the Mark Ryden article. Looks Great! You will see I have added much reference, please do not undo with out talking. [66] [67] Thanks,69.238.167.40 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

You're a sockpuppet, you're trying to restore poorly sourced, trivial, and promotional content deleted last year after discussion, adding even more promotional trivia, and you've made no effort to address the original objections, soundly grounded in WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Have you considered archiving your talk page, it is incredibly long and may cause certain editors with slow connections lots of problems considering there are now over 300 sections, you don't have to since it is your talk page. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:42pm • 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Big Time Rush discography

Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer. 100% of the content is already at Big Time Rush (band), so it probably even qualifies for A10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• WHY DO I NEED TO DISCUSS IT?!?! Did you not read the part where I said "100% of the content is already at Big Time Rush (band)? Whatever happened to common sense? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Check Resident Anthropologist's talk page, he clearly said "No delete it" regarding that AFD. I removed it from the log so it wouldn't disrupt the history.
• Seriously man, do you have some sort of agenda against me? It seems like no matter what I do, you're there to undo it. And answer me already. WHAT NEEDS DISCUSSION on the Big Time Rush discography?! It couldn't be any less controversial a redirect. 100% OF ITS CONTENT IS DUPLICATED ON THE PARENT ARTICLE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Are you gonna answer me or what? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Great. So you're bulldozing all my edits AND giving me the silent treatment. Way to be civil. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Vicky Vette

Please stay out of that posting and STOP undoing items. I have been a senior member of her website and inner circle for sometime now. Vicky & Rockerr (current husband & mgr) kabitz with me on everthing that is posted. Refrain from undoing anything. If you have a question or I need to improve upon something - ASK FIRST! Db54 (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I could make a better case for your not editing this article that your own words here. Read WP:COI, WP:BLP, and WP:RS for a start. A Wikipedia article is not controlled by its subject or her "inner circle," because Wikipedia is not a free advertising/publicity host. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Listen you dickweed - Dismas and I worked out a considerably amount of intormation that was previously there so don't make erroneous assumptions. It is not ADVERTISING nor is it PUBLICITY but has a bonafide connection to IT's SOURCE! THE LINKS on ALL ARTICLES connect in somewhere and somplace to PUBLICITY. The REFERENCEs are reflective of her history IN HER OWN WORDS and YOU DOn't GET much better than that! AND STOP UNDOING AWARDS and REFERENCES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:CIVIL also needs a refresher course. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When the shoe fits you have to wear it. I am opening up a complaint aagainst you and your UNAUTHORIZED undo without any discussion beforehand! FUrthermore, this is a quote to me from Vicky with regards to WikPedia and HER PAGE (NOT yours) How strange the page is almost empty, looks like someone stripped it! The link to the yahoo group is wrong, and there are barely any other links. there are a million interviews and articles on avn, but they don't list any of them... what a mess!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

die

You will die you have grandkids so all the stuff you do will be reversed some day get off the computer and stop wasting what little time you have left of you life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.132.23 (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent thread at ANI

I have made a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP-hopping_vandal_returns. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As you will have seen if you have read my comment, I have taken fairly short-term action. If the problem comes back then feel free to contact me on my talk page, and I will consider doing more. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Source

Comment on made Saturday Night Live (season 36) The confirmed on air contains a source. It's made by the show, it is the strongest source given. Just because it aired on TV does not mean a thing over wise.

Water78 ^{(talk • contribs)} 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Print/text sources are always preferred to video sources, and journalistic, independent sources are always preferred to advertising. Have some consideration for people with slower connections (and NBC's streaming capacity is less than ideal, as anybody who's watched their Sunday Night Football streams can attest to); and NBCwon't keep those clips up for very long, while the NYTimes references will stay up indefinitely. And it's currently 2-1 against your position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless of course NYTimes decides to take down the source. Water78 ^(talk

Article MS

What is happening with you? my editions are good. I took an example article, Ali Larter, it has a similar information: film grosses, critical reception, and more. Stop, please. We really need to read about her and her movies, but you're right, the stuff can involve the article subject. with related to special effects, i edited the article. It has not information about effects. 201.233.240.206 (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that the IP above is most likely a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SMG055/Archive. Nymf _hideliho! 14:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BravesFan2006

Hi. I'm totally ok with you going to the original ANI post and seeking block review; I'll go along with whatever consensus is there. Obviously, I feel it was appropriate (which is why I did it) but I won't pretend to be perfect. Rahter than discuss between ourselves, let's go to where others will join in - that also helps avoid splitting discussion up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?

I knew there was something up with this editor, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Very hard to deal with, not a smidgen of collegiality. I wish I knew who it was. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Found out who it was -- I though it might be someone I knew, but the name doesn't mean anything to me. Oh well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Helena Christensen

Watch out for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. All of your false edit summaries do nothing but stack up against you. Your interpretations of policy are way off, and your unhelpful edits are unwelcome in this article. Read the supporting citations.--Lexein (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. Give all of us a break. Stop pretending that adding something like "She is known as a cheese lover" to the article lede is constructive editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No accusation of "pretending", or mis-quoting me, will make it true. I try to (and insist that deleting editors do) apply and disclose exact pillar, policy, guideline, essay, or discussion (PPGED) used as reasons for additions AND deletions.

1. "Silliness" as a deletion reason, by itself, is less strong than the RS-sourced verifiability of the "cheese lover" claim, by itself. "Silliness" as in out of control, unjustified levity would be, I agree, undesirable in a serious article, but zero light-heartedness, while quoting the person's own words, just because it's a WP:BLP goes too far the other direction. I wish we could agree about that. (wait until the end)
2. "Claim of 'noted' is obviously unsupported'" is wrong or right depending on the usage of "noted." She obviously, to use your word, professed it herself multiple times, and it was multiply RS reported in notable sources. I most certainly did not mean the WP:N sense of deserving an article of its own. Here, a simple copyedit would have sufficed: "professed cheese lover." Do we agree about that? (wait until the end)
3. "is not constructive, and is much closer to vandalism than good faith editing" - I might agree with you, if it had been negatively phrased, or added out of the blue, or by a non-involved editor, or was not supported by her own RS words. But it was positively phrased, added in the same edit while expanding the lead per WP:MOSLEAD, by me, an involved editor with a solid history of constructive edits, and it was supported by her own RS words. Not even close to vandalism by anybody's definition. (wait until the end)
4. WP:UNDUE - well, it wasn't the first thing listed, it was the last, just like in the article - no undue emphasis intended whatsoever. (wait until the end)

If you AGF, you'll see no harmful intent on my part. Further, examine the edit history before making accusations against an editor, and never make false claims. I gave you the policy I was using. All I wanted from you was a strong reason for the deletion, which the next editor semi-happily provided in the form of WP:MOSBIO.

The end, and here's your payoff: I had NOT seen WP:MOSBIO (which restrains lede content to the key facts, establishing notability, and leaning away from personal characteristics). I have seen plenty of other policy including WP:MOSLEAD and WP:BLP, but not that one. Yes, a link to WP:MOSBIO is halfway down WP:MOSLEAD. In my defense, look at WP:BLP and tell me you see a mention of the lead paragraph or lede, or a visible, explicit link to "Manual of Style (biographies)" or "WP:MOSBIO"? It's implicit in a wikilink generically titled only "Manual of Style" at the bottom of the page, to be sure. Do you think I'm happy I missed that one? Do you think I'm happy any of my edits has been reverted on policy which I didn't know? I would like a damn break. You AGF, I AGF, simple as that.

--Lexein (talk) 07:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Followup. Thanks for preserving the above through the recent revert blizzard. Assuming you have by now read the above, I have just applied a minor edit to WP:BLP to make the link to Manual of Style (biographies) at the bottom visibly obvious. --Lexein (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously

Okay, yes, I was being bitchy. But can you please tell me what was wrong with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reggie_Young? That was clearly me self-closing as a withdrawn AFD, which is entirely appropriate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you comment at ANI, please

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#False_accusations. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be responding at ANI, but a careful response requires more time than I have immediately free. Please note that that TPH posted a string of uncivil invective to my talk page, repeatedly reposted it after I removed it, then eventually removed most of the invective with what passes for an apology about his "being bitchy." It is rather surprising to find that he posted a version of the same complaints to ANI, then posted the pseudo-apology to my talk page without complying with the ANI notification requirement. It hardly seems consistent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Frayne et al

While I don't necessarily dispute your decision, please see my talk page - jc37 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your motive, but the CSD criteria distinguish between articles which are intended as promotional, but can be made encyclopedic with routine editing, and those which must be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. I think the Frayne article falls into the former group, and I notice that another editor made the same determination on the speedy noms of several related articles. Why not just PROD or AFD them? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just wanted to make sure you had the information making the decision.

And that's part of why I placed the CSD template. Else I could have just deleted it myself : )

So now, I think we all agree that it's intended promotion that at least needs cleaning up.

I'll defer to others on the question of whether this local indie film maker is "notable". - jc37 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of J. G. Quintel for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article J. G. Quintel, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Luke Leighfield

Granted that this artist has a charted production, it is charted only in the Indie chart, which does not qualify, I believe, for inclusion under the policy outlined in WP:BAND.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Tess Broussard

Hello,

I see you edited the personal section from the Tess Broussard article.

I created the article and would like to add back a reworked section. here it is:

Personal Life

Broussard was engaged to wrestling star Stone Cold Steve Austin from 2002 to 2004. Their breakup was due to domestic violence, steroid and alcohol abuse.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks.

Dk4wiki (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope that you will take a look at the wikibias website.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockvilleMD (talk • contribs) 15:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the wikibias website? could you give me the link? i tried to search it and nothing came up.

thanks.

Dk4wiki (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ibrahim al-Azhari

I suppose you can find a source to the claim made on the article because I can't might be something to do with the name used. Mo ainm~Talk 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Then BLPPROD it; my point was the speedy nom was inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Colbert

Poorly sourced? I'm sorry is a news article not good enough now? Please don't take this personally but I think a news article is sourced well enough. Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:35pm • 09:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, the news article must include content related to the claim it is cited for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

COMPLETELY DELETING ALL CORRECT DATA ADDED AND APPROVED ALREADY BY BLP BOARD

had started this pg last yr and lately whatever additions I make from third party bios found etc you keep deleting. Why? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jennifer_Abbott_(director)

I already went through this recently with someone else just coming and undoing everything for no reason. Now this page is much worse off and skeletal then where it was before your deletes. This is not helping when you just delete info for no reason. What is the reason for this? Everything that been added from from a third party bio and approved by the blp board. I am undoing your edits, please do not keep undoing whatever I work on your doing this on other pages too.

You simply stated (diff | hist) . . Jennifer Abbott (director)‎; 18:24 . . (-654) . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (unreferenced etc) Yet clearly it WAS added a new reference page of the author bio website it came from written about this person. So it was referenced why did you delete saying unreferenced. Did you look at it before you go and just undo everything? If I am doing something wrong please advise or explain and I can correct whatever it may be. Thank you Nobelone (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also reverted you, Nobelone. What was added appears to be a copyright violation, and the source doesn't see at all reliable. Would you mind please showing us where this material was "approved by the blp board"? Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

IP hopper you previously dealt with

I ran into an IP hopper you dealt with earlier ([* [68]). Over the past few weeks they've been making low-level disruptive changes to date formats. Earlier they were changing instances of "Walt Disney" to "Walter Disney". From your edit summary you seem to know a little more of the editing pattern than I do. Let me know if you think this is part of a longer term problem.]

Here are some recent diffs to underline my point (the IPs are actually sequential and the focus on Disney and the style changes strongly suggest the same person).

Date style changes

[69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] (one that was recently repeated)

Disney

[75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

Shadowjams (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a long-term problem. Here's a pair of short ANI/BLPN threads regarding the problems from about a year ago [80][81]. This is the only named account I've managed to associate with the user [82], who's never completely stopped. I guess he's editing in good faith, but with some decidedly off-target ideas. Harder to spot these days, because the wackiness of his editing has declined (a mixed blessing). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading your ANI reports I share your frustration. I've dealt with similar issues. If you're sure that account is the same editor I'd suggest an SPI to try to find any sleepers and confirm it's the same. I may look into it a bit more to see if I can find any other IPs doing it... probably something to investigate more. This is one of the more diverse types of subtle vandalism I've seen. Hard to systematize a way at finding it. Shadowjams (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Matthew Marsden

You deleted my edit on Matthew Marsden. I said he jumped from 13,500 feet. The Golden Knight he jumped with said on the video on youtube that they were going "14,000 feet straight down". Also only pro military people get asked to jump with the Golden knights.

Secondly on the dvd extras on Rambo Marsden said he was pro military. He also appeared on the "Troopathon" in support of the military.http://www.gawkk.com/matthew-marsden-and-friends-on-troopathon-2010-standing-for-our-soldiers/discuss

Marsden's wife was pregnant with his third child at the premier of Transformers. http://www.zimbio.com/Matthew+Marsden/articles/BkjHMdIv6Zw/Parents+Matthew+Marsden+Nadine+Micallef

Please put these back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.6.157 (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To Hullaballoo. I am not claiming to be an expert on many things. But on this subject I am more or less an expert due to the fact I have worked with it since spring 1999. Kosovo is according to the vast majority of the IC (International community), ie UN, OSCE, EU, IOC and 122 of the worlds 192 countries, a Serbian province today. What it will be in a year or in 50 years, no one knows. As today as we speak, Kosovo is not even close to be an own country. Like I said, this could be changed. BUT, I thought that Wikipedia should reflect as close as we could come to the truth RIGHT NOW. Am I wrong ? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.156.162 (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To Hullaballoo. I am not claiming to be an expert on many things. But on this subject I am more or less an expert due to the fact I have worked with it since spring 1999. Kosovo is according to the vast majority of the IC (International community), ie UN, OSCE, EU, IOC and 122 of the worlds 192 countries, a Serbian province today. What it will be in a year or in 50 years, no one knows. As today as we speak, Kosovo is not even close to be an own country. Like I said, this could be changed. BUT, I thought that Wikipedia should reflect as close as we could come to the truth RIGHT NOW. Am I wrong ? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.156.162 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

About speedy deletion

Some months ago, someone created an article about Conor Clifford, and then someone deleted it because he hasn't made his official debut. So, why Jan Šebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló and Jhon Pírez have to have their own articles if they haven't made their official debut in any team? Now, another thing happens, the four first articles that I said violate the copyright rules, as you can see in this links: Jan Sebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló. I'll be waiting for your answer. Archibald Leitch (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

About speedy deletion

Some months ago, someone created an article about Conor Clifford, and then someone deleted it because he hasn't made his official debut. So, why Jan Šebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló and Jhon Pírez have to have their own articles if they haven't made their official debut in any team? Now, another thing happens, the four first articles that I said violate the copyright rules, as you can see in this links: Jan Sebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló. I'll be waiting for your answer. Archibald Leitch (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Conor Clifford article went through a full AFD [83]; it wasn't speedied. "Not notable," including claims of failure to meet a notability guideline, isn't grounds for speedy deletion, but for PROD or AFD. The copyvios don't appear to be the complete article, and so should be edited out, leaving valid stubs. You should post an appropriate warning on the creator's talk page, and may want to make an ANI report if the behavor is repeated.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Content in these BLP articles is copy violation and if a player has not a first team appearance he is generally not wiki notable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The haven't first team appearances for gods sake! How can you say they deserve an article? Archibald Leitch (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pay attention to what Airplaneman, who's an administrator, and I have said to you. Lack of notability is not grounds for speedy deletion. If you don't think the the subjects are notable, PROD the articles or take them to AFD. Since only one section in the articles is identified as a copyvio, only that section needs to be removed, not the entirety of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• - I have had this one since the AFD in my user space waiting for the first appearances of this player http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Off2riorob/Jacopo_Sala all of them are copy vio and all of them are not notable at present and all of them should be speedied asap. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There's enough noninfringing text for a valid stub, assuming the copyvio claims are on target, and "not notable" isn't grounds for speedy deletion (of course). Recreation could be, but I don't know what the previous article looked like (and in any event several of the articles involved weren't previously deleted). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BUT ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE IS COPYVIO!! You should look the links that I gave you again. But forget it!!! I'm tired of this shit!! I said it and I will say it again: YOUR RULES ARE SHIT!!!! Those fucking articles are clearly copyvio and those players haven't made any first team appearance!!!!! That's what I hate about your shitty rules!!! You delete any fucking article about any fucking player because he didn't do a first team debut but when somebody report shitty articles as the ones that I gave you, you say that THIS SHIT and THIS ANOTHER SHIT AND I'M TIRED OF THAT!!!! Go fuck yourself and get a life you FUCKING NOOBS!!!! thank you for your time. Archibald Leitch (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could have PRODded the articles, removed the sections you claim are copyvios, and reviewed WP:CIVIL in less time than it's taking you to beat this dead horse. The requirements for speedy deletion are quite restrictive, for good reason, and your nominations, regardless of the merits of the articles, didn't meet them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Teamoteamo

You just reverted him. I'm convinced he's not new, and based on today's behaviour, probably evading a previous block. Any idea as to who he might be?—Kww(talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

hello

Re: Christopher G. Donovan, don't you find it at little odd that the CTHDO2010 wsa created today and had only edited that one page until today because it was an IP user, and is likely somehow tied to the campaign? Markvs88 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make the content involved any less inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me if I don't understand, but let me see if I'm getting you correctly: you're supporting the removal of a cited point from a newspaper of record (The Hartford Courant) that a public official supported something? Markvs88 (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It lacks encyclopedic significance, and is framed in an insinuatory manner. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it lacks significance, since it is no more or less important than any number of points on the Joe Lieberman or Jodi Rell pages, and is a part of the public record. If you objected to just the tone of the sentance, you could easily rewrite it instead of just removing it. Markvs88 (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Brotherly Hate

Just letting you know that the artist's article has now been deleted. That's why I tagged the album for A9; the artist looked like a slamdunk A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

MC HAMMER

RE: Recent reverts... I will do the proper thing (per Wiki) and contact you to discuss this instead of dispute it with edit wars. You need to explain to me what source isn't acceptable and why. There were more than one given. I'm not sure what you are disputing. There were several different edits made and you can't toss out the entire edit. I expanded on what was already there. Someone removed "dispite public rumors" that had no source for a long time. I did 80% (over time) of this article. So I know a bit about it. If you would actually VIEW the sources, there is a video of the show where it is said. So you can not argue that. Both sources contain a video source. So even if the site isn't accepted, you know it really happened or was said. You need to explain yourself and not just say I'm tossing links in where they don't belong when there are supporting pre-existing context. The info is fine, but if you are determined to dispute it regardless, you need to provide proof it is not legit. I would appreciate handling this a mature and logical way as required of us on here. I seem to be the only one lately caring to do that but so be it. I'm not trying to be right or get my way, I'm helping the article and making it better. You need to show me specifically what isn't acceptable, remove it, leave the rest. Not "toss the baby out with the bath water". I know it's easier to just revert everything, but that is not the right thing to do. If the links should be put after sentences or paragraphs, then please move it should they be mid-sentence. I'm trying to figure out what your dispute is and resolve it. We are supposed to do so this way before reverting things back-and-forth. I've explained myself, I hope you do too because it's not clear. This isn't an attack, it's just a discussion to resolve the matter. I appreciate it kindly. Thank you and have a good day/night. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please disregard, I resolved this with another editor who claimed the content was fine but the proper way to tag references was not. Thanks for your interest, nonetheless. I usually post with [ ] and someone just fixes the format, without undoing the entire edit. My bad if it was done wrong. Just needed clarity. Have a nice day/night! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Nuttall

Hello, You removed my addition to the Gordon Nuttall page this morning. I believe an initial superlative about the level of corruption places the rest of the page in context. The CM changed the link during the day and it is now found at the Herald-Sun site.

Is your problem a) loss of the link to the original source (today's CM headline) or b) the description of Nuttall as our most notoriously corrupt politician? I was going to simply re-insert the sentence with the corrected citation but thought you may have reservations about b). If so, can you name a more corrupt Australian politician?

Please advise. Didactik (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My objection is exactly what I said in the edit summary: that the claim is not supported by the source you cited. Not that a single source would be sufficient for an interpretive/subjective claim like this, especially under WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, too interpretive and subjective. It is predicted Nuttall will receive "the longest sentence for corruption in Australian history". Should this occur, do you think this fact is a suitably objective and appropriate addition to the first paragraph of the Nuttall page? It is interesting that Premier Blight is comparing Nuttall's corruption with the level of corruption under Bjelke-Petersen. Note that the leading paragraph of the JBP page states that his government was "institutionally corrupt". This contextualises what follows. The Mungana affair also arguably has a similar level of corruption but comparison between eras is difficult. Didactik (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Shelby Lynne

Hey, can you please tell me how the Tears, Lies and Alibis redirect was inappropriate? The article in question is one sentence long and completely devoid of sources. WP:NMUSIC clearly supports redirection in this case, so I feel a discussion over it would be superfluous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, this is why. Good argument for WP:1S and WP:PUTEFFORT, I'd say — if the article were more than one super short sentence I probably wouldn't have touched it. Still, I'd like to know why you absolutely never talk to me. That's really counterproductive, don't you think? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Explain to me how the above is ranting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Still, I'd like to know why you absolutely never talk to me." I have no idea what is gong on here, but soap operas are fun. :-)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What's going on is comment blanking, but this is the first diff I have seen it done. Why can't you guys talk it out? That's how we avoid Edit warring and other stuff like that. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

After a mudfight, you may become friends.[84]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

TPH, I don't know the history here, but you left several comments in quick succession, partly answering your original question but then complaing about HW not talking to you even though it had been less then 8 minutes since your first comment (and at some stage complaing to ANI). I would be a bit miffed if someone complains about me not talking to them after only 8 minutes too. Also please remember HW is entitled to remove whatever comments they want from their talk page. It's considered a sign they read it. You shouldn't edit war over any comments someone removes from their talk page. In this particular case it appears HW has chosen not to communicate further on this matter. For the matter of not communicating, I would let it be in this case given the circumstances. And any issues on the article are best dealt with in the article talk page. So I would drop this specific discussion. If you have wider issues, regardless of what mistakes HW may make, I would also suggest you consider whether there may be a better way to approach this in future. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Karpen

Hi. I agree entirely with your rationale and I have no problems whatsoever with your removing the CSD notice. However, this does not avoid the issue, that in its present form, the page is extremely promotional in support of a political candidature, and has been posted shortly before an upcoming election. As you suggested, the page is not unsalvagably editable, but this must be done very quickly in order to demonstrate that an encyclopdia is not a political platform. Whilst assuming good faith, I do feel that the creator may uknnowingly be gaming the system with his appeals at talk:Jeremy Karpen, User talk :ConcentratedAllPurposeCleaner, and could possibly be a sockpuppet here: User talk:Jeremykarpen. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I've tagged your talk page for the archiving bot as its very long, so that you don't have to trawl through hundreds of old threads to read your messages. If you don't like it just remove the code at the top of the page--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 04:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Just as an FYI, you're the subject of a discussion at ANI. I'm not involved. Just notifying you, as I would want the same, and it's procedure. See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikistalking

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saebvn (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment

I have filed a Requests for Comment on you. Your comments are welcomed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

David Cross

Please explain why having 20 sources doesn't remove the need for a {{BLPsources}} tag. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because the total number of sources is irrelevant. The article includes many unsourced/unreferenced statements, including an lengthy unreferenced quotation from an uncited Rolling Stone interview. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Lerdthenerd's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just thought you'd like to know after you reverted me Sarekofvulcan stepped in and reverted you on Hitomi Kobayashi, i wouldn't revert him if i was you, go to the talkpage and speak with dekkipedia to gain consensus, you've got an admin now telling you your 3rr does not apply argument doesn't wash now--Lerdthenerd (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

HW, if it's such an "undisputed" NFCC violation, nominate the image for deletion which would entail a discussion rather than edit warring on the article page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We went through this already, back in July. As admin KWW pointed out then, "But he [Wolfowitz] was not mistaken. Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd, especially since it's a blatantly obvious NFCC#1 violation. His removal makes it clear that there was not a consensus to restore the material. Anyone could have taken the material to FFD. If somehow a consensus was achieved that this was one of the vanishingly rare exceptions to the general agreement that copyrighted pictures cannot be used to illustrate BLPs, it could be restored. Until that agreement is reached, the image can't be in the article. It was the restoration that was disruptive, not the removal.—Kww(talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC) A test case was also run at FFD [85] with a clear and strong consensus for deletion. There was lengthy discussion on the policy talk, without any resulting change in the policy language or enforcement practices.[86] Over the last few months, I've reviewed thousands of nonfree images, removing several hundred using virtually identical edit summaries and rationales, and the only significant controversy has come from a small group of users insisting on special treatment for articles about Japanese porn, and who press the same arguments repeatedly despite community rejection. We don't need to rehash a settled issue every time an old NFCC violation turns up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

At least going through the nomination and deletion would get the file off the wikiserver, just so that it is not easily restored. If someone reuploads it, it's easily csd g4d. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing sources

I have reverted some of your edits to Nessa Devil. You removed 4 sources. I restored two of them, that were reliable. (I added info about them in Talk:Nessa Devil) --Neo139 (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#References and they are not reliable for biographies. So it was ok to remove them.--Neo139 (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Artur Balder References

• References: I dont know if it should be done here, but I will add some references below.

There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them:

El País, published for instance in nacional sites, culture, books 2006: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Artur/Balder/triunfa/narrativa/infantil/debuta/historica/elpepicul/20060610elpepicul_5/Tes?print=1

On the other hand it is strange that someone can state that may be the Artur Balder of Little Spain is not the same as the Artur BAlder of the books, since at the official site of the documentary you can download the press kit in high resolution, and in the chapter that it dedicates to the director, Artur Balder is the author of El Evangelio de la Espada, Crónicas de Widukind, and this is too in the GERMAN wikipedia stated. Both links:

http://little-spain.us/Little_Spain_Prensa_2010.pdf

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Balder

The Little Spain official site links to an official Flickr site where is clear to see the references of Artur Balder. I invite you to visit the www.little-spain.us

Artur Balder is author of, as far as I know, 7 novels, some them translated into 8 languages, including nederlands, italian, french, with major publishing houses. The publishing house in spanish for his fantasy fiction is Random House Mondadori. You can read at the corporate website of RHM the recommendation of the author:

http://www.randomhousemondadori.com/Sellos/SellosFicha.aspx?Idioma=En&id=15

The historical fiction is being published by Edhasa, a major prestigious publishing house in Spain:

http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-el-evangelio-de-la-espada-cronicas-de-widukind-/1811185/2900001410005

The official site for its last historical fiction, published in november 2010, had a shortfilm for promotion of the saga, and all the information is available in english, german and spanish, with an excerpt of the book in russian, too:

htt://www.widukind.eu

References caused by announcement the documentary of "Little Spain":

http://www.google.be/search?q=%22little+spain%22+documental&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a

Looking at the search result you can see ALL the spanish media in the list in the first 100 results, from La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, La Razón... Just all. There is consensus about the relevance of the work of Artur Balder in relationship with the restoring of the historical memory of a large number of immigrants in New York City and Little Spain.

The information, that was not intended primarly to the american media, was however trnaslated from agency EFE AMERICA reports into the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Latin American Herald Tribune, and translated into english:

http://www.google.be/search?q=%22little+spain%22+documentary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a

Particularly the link to The Latin American Herald Tribune:

http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13003&ArticleId=378105

And this is the resulat of a first private screening at La Nacional, the Spanish Benevolent Society of NY, last november, for the Spanish media and media agencies. Wikipedists have to know that the documentary is going to be released in a major film festival of New york city in 2011, but I cannot write down the name since it will be 100% sure.

The IMDb has accepted the credits of Balder's work in film industry during the last 10 years:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3470412/

Articles about Artur Balder are present in about 10 languages of Wikipedia, included the german one.

I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past.

Lolox76 (talk)--Lolox76 (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Even though we're on opposite sides of the inclusionst/deletionist divide with respect to the article in question, it was downright refreshing to read your well-reasoned, well-worded, calm and collected argument in favour of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Roxxx (2nd nomination), considering how some of the other editors voting for deletion decided to go about phrasing their arguments. Keep up the fine, cool-headed work. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

TPH is under a lot of heat for WP:CIVIL violations, but that doesn't give you a license to behave similarly]. His base assertion seems correct: there aren't any sources for that thing.—Kww(talk) 14:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD notification

Perhaps you're interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Lande. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trebor (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Engaging other editors

If you have reverted another editor, it is pretty much mandatory that you discuss it with him. That's how the WP:BRD cycle works. If you refuse to discuss your edits, I will consider blocking you on those grounds alone.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies

Oops, I seem to have repeated that horrible incivility for which I was instantly blocked-- and right on the ANI board, viewable by multiple Admins! Oh goodness gracious!!! But what's this, what's THIS? Going on an hour later, and not so much as an eyebrow raised. Could it POSSIBLY be that the block was unjust and biased, but since it was done by a popular loudmouth with a large following, "consensus" approved it? Oh no. That would mean that the "rules and policies" here are just a big joke. Well, apologies for the incivility anyway, and for all the bile spewed at the RfC. And thanks for helping to drive me away from this madhouse. Regards, and happy editing. Dekkappai (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pulse (Thomas Giles album)

Hi, I'm curious why you removed the deletion tag for the Pulse album. The artist exists, but the album does not (it has not been released - it is expected to be released in Feb). I can't see how it can be kept under Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball or under any notability criteria (If you look up the 'reviews' a number appear to be on sites where anyone can publish reviews, and so are not RS). Can you reconsider this one? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You tagged the article for A9 speedy deletion. An album article can be speedied under A9 only "where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted." Since the artist article exists, the album article can't be speedied. In general, "not notable" isn't grounds for speedy deletion, but requires a standard afd or prod. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina Fisheva

The article claims that she was born in 1930, then says that her career started in 1930. I would say that qualifies as a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say that any minimally competent Wikipedia editor would be able to recognize the difference between erroneous phrasing in text relating to a non-English person, written by someone whose native language wasn't English, and a hoax, an that a responsible Wikipedia editor would have done a competent Google before flinging what amounts to an accusation of bad faith against the article's creator. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I did do a Google search. In fact, I searched in Azerbaijani and Russian as well. I would think the fact that the English name turns up nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, and the same for the Azerbaijani name and Russian, is a red flag. If it's not a hoax, then certainly it's a very obscure person. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No minimally competent, honest editor who actually looked at the Russian-language search results you cite could possibly describe them as "nothing but Wikipedia mirrors." Stop wasting mt time and that of whichever other editors you've tried to drag into your latest manufactured drama. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

TPH made significant changes to his comment above while I was replying to it, removing a disproved claim that illustrates a serious problem with his editing. ::I did do a Google search in English, Azerbaijani and Russian. Even so, it's clear you found something that I didn't. You were right. (But can you please lay off calling me "incompetent"? There's no need for repeated insults.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The comment is perfectly legitimate. You know this; just a few hours ago you initiated an ANI discussion against a relatively inexperienced user, made no less strong comments about his inompetence, and advocated blocking him for failure to meet your competency standards. [87] I see nothing exempting you from the same sort of discussion about editing practices. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time with repeated attacks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the article. And seriously, I think Paul Erik is right. I'm honestly not the best of editors, and clearly suck at using Google. I've really been letting your comments get under my skin when they shouldn't. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

Doesn't look like TPH alerted you of the AN/I discussion concerning you, so I'm doing it.

Incidentally, would you please consider archiving your talk page? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop trying to find flaws in everything. Removing sourced information in such a brutal way, in addition removing a perfectly accepted free image is not acceptable. You can try to be bold and add a reference or request for a reference instead of resorting complere removal. This attitude of yours is unacceptable and the next time it happens, you will be reported at ANI. Shahid • ^Talk2me 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

About Ieuan Morris - thanks

Hi HW. Thanks for removing the "speedy" for Ieuan Morris - error of judgement on my part. May see you at the AfD. Thanks again! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Wack Pack for deletion

The article Wack Pack is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wack Pack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Beth S. Green

I am currently revising the content of this page to avoid another deletion. This includes checking all references, citations that are needed, and addressing aditional concerns (COI, etc.). We do not intend this to be a glorified or biased bio page, yet rather to establish Beth S. Green in conjunction with her present status with NYIP (New York Institute of Photography), and other notible references which should be acceptable to wiki's standards and guidelines, in a neutral point of view.

If you can give me just a few days to accomplish that, it would be greatly appreciated since I can only work on this during evening hours, or limited hours, online.

Thank you for your consideration.

Drmidi2010 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mackenna's Gold

Wikipedia says “To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.”

And goes on to say, “The most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.”

According to Wikipedia, the two articles and three books in the bibliography are all secondary sources. The four films in the bibliography and the Nadoolman interview are all primary sources.

The secondary sources mention the fact that Lucas worked on the documentary while Mackenna’s Gold was being filmed, and that Mackenna’s Gold motifs are present throughout the Indiana Jones franchise. Additionally, the films reference each other the same as any books do.

The Films in Review article has the quote, “We chose The Secret of the Incas (A 1954 action thriller starring Charlton Heston), which more than any other single film, Spielberg and Lucas drew upon for inspiration…”

TCM’s Richard Harland Smith states plainly, “Certainly, the George Lucas/ Lawrence Kasdan/Philip Kaufman story and screenplay for Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark was rooted in the serial tropes of Hollywood westerns but the coincidence cuts even deeper. Present on location was George Lucas himself…”

WikiPolicy states: “Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.”

I’m not sure what else you expect to see here, Hullaballoo – are you wanting direct quotations from each source, as well as DVD counter-stops for the films? (I thought people with grandkids were supposed to be happy. LOL.) Dutchmonkey9000 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning templates

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Al Roker: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Flyguy33 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a driveby IP user; templating the user page would have served no purpose beyond artificially inflating my edit count. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Miracle at Donna

Thank you for your suggestion to the other admin and as to why did they delete "Miracle at Donna" as a speedy deletetion.

any suggestions on how to get this written right ? so it doesnt get deleted?

best Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpublicist (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Revdel

Done. Please remember that if you're trying to suppress information, posting it on the most widely watched board won't necessarily help... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand that point. If the information was even borderline-legitimate or sensitive I'd handle it more discreetly; when dealing with adolescents trying to embarrass their peers, speed seems most appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jason Gardiner

Hello, I work with Jason Gardiner and notice that you keep changing his age and DOB on this page. To confirm his DOB is 6th Nov 1971 making Jason 39 not 45. Please stop changing this entry, If you want to discus this further I can provide you with contact details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.10.250 (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Young Israel Shomrai Emunah

Hi there, I think it was previously deleted because, according to the talk page of Jewtonian (talk · contribs), who started it, there was a tag to delete it on December 10. It was recreated in January. It was probably deleted with a title including the YISE. I am a tad confused, so you may be able to discern this better than I currently am. Thanks and happy editing.--TM 05:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous deletion was a speedy; the general rule against recreation of deleted articles applies only when a full AFD discussion has already taken place. See criterion G4 at WP:SPEEDY. Moreover, the rule applies only when the articles are substantially identical. The previous deletion was a A3 speedy, meaning that article had no substantive content. The current article has substantive content, so it is not substantially identical to the deleted version. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

80.192.21.253

HW, you need to get a couple of ideas straight. First, there is no connection between me (former Magpie1892) and the IP listed. Simply checking the addresses would show this, if you could be bothered. Second, I was having issues with you long before my previous ban; you know this, so I don't know why you pretend otherwise. I'm hardly alone in having issues with you, as we see daily. Just understand that I can and will edit whenever it suits me, OK? --85.237.211.208 (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Rekha Chavan (Actress)

What is the "credible claim of significance" in the article? The only reference given is that of hoonur.com which anybody can create. The movie link doesn't contain her name. So, where's the credibility in this article? Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Chase Masterson

Good catch on the ref - it looked good to me, so I never followed it up. The IP socks and brand-new editor User:Scott Scott Hayden are editwarring to reinstate, so keep an eye on it -- I'm at 3RR. I've filed a sockpuppet report here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Harveys (handbag design and manufacturer)

Hello, can you please have a look at this article. I feel as if it being unfairly labeled by a different editor. You have revised it in the past. The editor is using old revisions no longer relevant to the article against the current article. I have followed every rule and the piece as it stands is notable, has third party references, and is written from a neutral point of view. Any advice would be helpful as I am finding it very difficult to please certain editors. Thanks so much! SJayQ (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability

Hi! I saw you removed the tag. The reason I tagged was [88] and en pages only. Do you still think the man is notable? The creator of the article is his son. The interwiki links are not correct. Click any. It will bring you to a category page. Oda Mari (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Lack of notability isn't grounds for speedy deletion, but calls for a standard deletion process. You shouldn't A7 an article which "makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The article had two credible claims of significance: multiple published books and endowing a library collection. If you don't believe the subject is notable, and he may well not be, just PROD the article or start an AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. But I'll remove incorrect interwiki links. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 03:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Troy Wolverton

I'd be grateful if you could tell me where in the article there is a credible claim of significance? Regards Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Currently a columnist for major US newspaper; published regularly in other notable media outlets. "Significance" is a lower standard than notability, and is satisfied, for example, by asserting membership in a significant class of persons where a nontrivial share are notable, like journalists, professors, and, by unfortunate consensus, porn performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Jannie Blackwell

I would appreciate it greatly if you could actually look at the references to the document I edited today. They are all credible and from Philadelphia Newspapers souch as the Inquirer, Daily News, and The Daily Pennsylvanian. You speak about nuetrality? That does not exist in its current form on this page, where she is lauded with praise. The negativity must be expressed also. I think you are being overly vague, in your comments as to why you feel you had to change what is printed facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcgain (talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there are large blocks of text that are completely unreferenced. When presenting allegations like these, each significant assertion must be discretely referenced. If written carefully, paragraph-by paragraph referencing could suffice. It is particularly important to provide specific references for each quotation used.

Second, your additions to the article appear, on closer inspection, to be verbatim repetitions of copyrighted text from cited sources. This is likely both copyright infringement and violation of Wikipedia's non-free content policy.

Third, the inserted texts are far too long and detailed for an encyclopedic article, placing undue weight on the subject matter. The key matters need to be summarized, with tangential matters eliminated.

Fourth, speculation, particularly speculation of the nature described here, is usually unacceptable content -- although for a public political figure, exceptions for matters of important, prominently discussed in reliable sources, may apply. Such matters need to be treated with particular care. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Mitchell

Please tell what is wrong with the information I posted on the Elizabeth Mitchell page as I do not see anything wrong with it as it is fully referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mua27 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

John Mott (captain)

You've give a reason for removing the Prod but could you explain it for me. You say significance - do you mean significant coverage of the subject? I notice there is an "Identifcation controversy" but the actual section does not mark out how important the controversy is, eg if it has an effect outside coverage of the subject itself. In all I just have my doubts about this. I'd like your opinion first and I hope you won't take it personally should I disagree. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Raigad Ropeway

There is a message for you at Raigad Ropeway talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL

Adding the trout was classic!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite breaking

If you're going to remove text like you did here, could you at least make sure you're not breaking a citation? That particular LA Times piece was cited twice in the Ginger Lynn article. Tabercil (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Katona

ANI opened on your vandalism of Kerry Katona. Thanks, --82.41.20.82 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

82.41 reporting you to AIV

hello the IP 82.41 reported you to AIV, I just removed the report, as it was a bit suspicious, is this IP angry at you for something?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for acting. I'm pretty sure the IP is one of many socks of indef-blocked user Magpie1892, who was blocked after I made a sockpuppetry/!votestacking complaint a while back. He's had access to a range of IP accounts, making an SPI case difficult. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem! looks like its solved over at ANI hopefully you can both sort this kerry katona thing out now peacefully--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

He may say he does not live in Scotland now, but I'd wager he's from Scotland. Since this little-known "fact" about a lesser-known Scottish author is not in the source the IP added it to, I'd say we have a Scot. Or someone who knows a Scot extremely well. Just a guess. Doc talk 21:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not Scottish. I'm English. I know a lot about Ross Laidlaw though - his books are superb. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One more thing - it's probably just a coincidence, but there's one article both the IP and Magpie have edited that has a surprisingly low number of edits and other editors to it.[89] Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 02:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

Write This Down (band)'s notability. the article does not explain how they meet WP:BAND. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think they don't meet WP:BAND, nominate the article through the regular AFD process. A7 speedy deletion is more stringent; it states that "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Being signed to a notable label has been seen in the past as enough of a claim of significance to prevent A7 speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I will do that, but you still have not taken the time to explain why you think the article does meet the criteria. This is disingenuous and you're being a bully by not commenting. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just being uncivil and insulting. I explained why the article is not suitable for speedy deletion, as you requested, even though I thought that was self-evident from my edit summaries. If you were familiar with A7 requirements, you would not be arguing that failure to satisfy WP:BAND is grounds for speedy deletion. Pointing out the lack of policy justification for your action isn't "bullying"; it's what Wikipedia editors are expected to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Abi Titmuss

I can't say I am surprised that you get hounded when you restore material that is a) not only absolute nonsense, b) been deleted several times and c) reference it to an article which doesn't even mention the "fact"! --Shylocksboy (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this - At the very least, the news article must include content related to the claim it is cited for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You don't even follow your own rules. --Shylocksboy (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The text you're complaining about certainly is utter drivel, but you're the one who screwed up and added it back in today [90]. Why are you accusing me of doing it, both here, and, by implication, on the article talk page? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Although I didn't do this. it wasn't you, but somebody using a near-dup of your using name. Tar and feathers for both of us. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

User Mfmoviefan

I've requested Mfmoviefan (talk · contribs) be blocked for spamming. From what I've seen so far, this looks like part of long-running spamming for Mark Sells. You mentioned sockpuppetry on his talk page. Can you provide details on the other socks? So far, I've just some ip's (all but one in the Denver, CO area) and Mark Sells' account: 65.218.133.150 (talk · contribs)(St Louis, MO), 67.176.123.201 (talk · contribs), 71.229.160.234 (talk · contribs), 71.229.171.157 (talk · contribs), 75.71.22.124 (talk · contribs), 174.51.211.253 (talk · contribs), & Thereeldeal (talk · contribs). --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was referencing his Thereeldeal account, where he was warned about self-promotion a few years back. Looks like he'd been getting away with this for a while, but most of his links have gone dead because of some kind of dispute he had with the "Oregon Herald" (which is a webzine, it turns out, not a newspaper). I don't think I spotted any IPs you don't have; I was going to track down all the pages that mentioned "Mark Sells" (or "mark-sells", since a few just linked without naming him. Do you think Mark Sells should go to AFD as well? He seems to have a handful of writing credits outside of his own site, but I don't see enough coverage to justify an article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to wait to see if anyone responds, and continue with the cleanup.

I've tagged Mark Sells as not indicating any notability. A simple prod would be fine if no one responds there. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Hannah Conda

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hannah Conda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still don't see one, so I'll take the article to AFD (where a related article with an actual assertion of notability is already headed down in flames). The subject is a local musician/performer, and the article makes no claim of significance in the field beyond "one of the fastest rising queens in the city", which doesn't make the cut. (I also see credibility issues, since the article as written claims there are precisely two "gay venues" in the fourth-largest Australian city, with a metro population of more than 1.5 million; I live in a metro region that comes in at about onlu two-thirds the size, yet it has dozens of gay clubs etc). Local performer, appears only in local clubs, has only been on local radio occasionally -- no claims of significance there. I'm curious (and dubious) about where you found a credible claim of significance, especially since the article has no reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines for A7 clearly state that this tagging "is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability." You are confusing claims of significance with notability - if an article about a person makes any claim of significance, be it supported by reliable sources or not, it will not be deleted under the A7 criterion. Processes such as AfD are where an article should go at that point. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 11:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you're just reading "credible" out of A7, and you still haven't pointed out what you believe to be an assertion of significance in the article. There's a pretty solid consensus that simply claiming a performer is locally popular isn't enough to survive A7, just as there is for high school athletes. Occasionally documented press coveragewill amount to enough to survive A7, but that's because the citation of the press coverage is itself a claim of significance. "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Jr is the greatest point guard in the history of Graustark Regional High School" isn't enough to survive A7; nor is "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is the finest and most popular street mime in all the parishes of New Orleans and the surrounding communities; his marvelous impressions of Dre Brees, Moon Landrieu, and Rockin' Dopsie are beloved of tourists and residents alike." A7 requires that the assertion of significance be credible, and wholly undocumented (and unsoureable) claims in an article which other indicators of unreliability will often fail the credibility standard. "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is the most successful breeder of basilisks in the Rocky Mountains" fails, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 19:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lauren Conrad

I don't completely understand why you would completely remove the entire "Personal Life" section from the Lauren Conrad page. I am trying to make it updated and to the standards of wikipedia. Yes, maybe The Hollywood Gossip is not an appropriate enough of a source. But the Access Hollywood article was, and your only reasoning for removal of that was that "February 2010 is not current." If you are going by that standard, much of the information on wikipedia would be "outdated." Ryanlively (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP imposes moderately restrictive standards of accuracy for biographies of living persons. "Currently" is not a terribly accurate term, since there's no indication, after it's inserted into the article, as to the date involved, and the relevant information if often transient. Among other things, as of February 2010, Hosni Mubarek was the "current" president of Egypt, Nancy Pelosi was the "current" speaker of the US House, Sandra Bullock was "currently" married to Jesse James, Joe Torre was the "current" manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Keith Olbermann was "currently" employed by MSNBC, and Donovan McNabb was the "current" starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles. WP:BLPGOSSIP states "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." In general, dating/relationship histories lack encyclopedic significance, even for the prominent; even the Joni Mitchell article does not perpetuate the notorious Rolling Stone article detailing her affairs with Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from destructive editing.

I've undone most of the destructive editing you did in Nudity in film, in which you deleted my entire addition. Since your comment said "speculation" I removed the only part that can be considered speculation (i.e., "may have been inadvertent"). The rest is merely factual and does not require any citation, since the film itself is still widely available on DVD and can be easily checked for consistency with what was posted. My addition is relevant to the subject matter of the page, and should not be deleted out of hand by you. If you still have a problem with it, please take it to "discussion" or talk, or contest it through the proper administrative channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embram (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Embram (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

We've (collectively) already had this discussion in principle at great length over Unsimulated sex in film and reached consensus. While the film itself might be acceptable as a source for in-universe content, it's generally not acceptable as a source for real-world content about the performers, living or not. We don't need to argue the point, over and over, for every film. Find a reliable secondary source for your claim. If nobody's noticed it (or "them") before you, it's both original research and rather dubious. And there's a pretty strong consensus around here that adding unsourced content and personal observations is more accurately described as "destructive editing" than insisting on compliance with WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Any source is a "personal observation" since they are all the results of human observations. And the film is itself a source. How about a screenshot? But I've added a secondary source citation for you. Embram (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A message board post on an open forum is not a reliable secondary source. A second editor has now independently removed the text you added. Absent a genuinely reliable secondary source and a legitimate indication of significance, I see no reason not to treat the matter as closed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For removing fluff from several articles! CutOffTies (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen charts

If it sways your opinion any, I e-mailed Nielsen at least twice regarding any archival of the Canadian country and digital charts. They said that there isn't any sort of paid-subscription archive for them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Frost Beckner

Excuse me Mr. Wolfowitz. I do not know what motivated you to remove all of the content in the article Michael Frost Beckner but it is you who should be removed from this forum. I am the biographer for this living person and have dutifully sourced all of the content. I am not a close associate of Mr. Beckner, but have done a significant amount of research about him and do consider myself an expert in this area. Your actions have degraded the the reputation of yourself and of Wikipedia as a source of useful information.Dwwinter (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Then you should reread more carefully my response to your post at BLPN. As just one example, your presentation of information sourced to an Entertainment Weekly article on original screenplays substantially misrepresents the contents of the article. And if you think anything I do is going to degrade the reputation of The Big Bad Wolfowitz beyond its current status, you haven't noticed very much of what's been said about me here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Phan Dinh Phung

The reason for this edit is that I cannot verify the Vietnamese claim that Phan Dinh Phung had killed in battle. The thing is the cause of Phan Dinh Phung's death is still a question in Vietnam, most historians tend to not describe clearly why Phan Dinh Phung died and some others used the French's accounts. I found the "Phan Dinh Phung was killed by the French" claim only in some online newspapers and the writers ain't historian at all. I'm Vietnamese and so that please don't accuse me of siding with the French! And you should note that the primary editor of this article, YellowMonkey, is also Vietnamese too.--115.75.155.250 (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Since, as you say, the cause of death is "still a question," WP:NPOV requires that our article present both sides of the issue. You certainly can't just remove one side of the argument as unverified while leaving the other side in, but still unreferenced and unsourced -- especially if, as you say here, "most historians" don't subscribe to that position. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is still a question in Vietnam to me because these online article(s). Give that the French claim has been cited by using an American professor in the body of the article, I will revert your edit once again and will revert it if you do it again. You claim that it is "unreferenced and unsourced" has demonstrated you haven't read the whole article and you reverted my edits because that I'm an anonymous user.

---

Phan died of dysentery on January 21, 1896, and his captured followers were executed. A report submitted by the de Lanessan to the Minister of Colonies in Paris stated that "the soul of resistance to the protectorate was gone".(Marr, p. 68.)

• Marr, David G. (1970). Vietnamese anticolonialism, 1885–1925. Berkeley, California: University of California. ISBN 0-520-01813-3.
• Online sources Search Google Book Before Making Such Revert, Even Vietnamese Historian Said That He Died of Dysentery

---

And the Vietnamese claim has no reliable citation at all. If there is still no consensus, I will report it the WPMILHIST.--115.75.155.250 (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

One more time. You acknowledge there is a dispute over the cause of death, that it is "still a question.". You also say that "most historians" do not present a definitive report. Therefore, WP:NPOV, which is policy requires that all sides of the dispute be presented. I note that the Vietnamese Wikipedia article states that "In a battle fierce fighting, Phan Dinh Phung seriously injured, and died on 28 December in 1895" (per Google translation). It also cites a source, which the Google translation doesn't provide a clear of identification of for me to review. But in the absence of any definitive proof as to which account is correct, Wikipedia policy requires that both versions be presented in the article, without presenting a preferred version as factual. I highly doubt that MILHIST will dispute the application of NPOV, given the fact that you acknowledge the existence of a dispute as to the cause of death. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP editor has asked me to comment here. While I'm not at all familiar with this person or period in Vietnam's history, the article does not provide a reference to support a statement that "the Vietnamese claim he was killed by the French". If different reliable sources present different causes of death then these should be included in the body of the article with supporting references, and/or if there is a belief in Vietnam that he died at the hands of the French this should also be included with supporting references. If a reliable source can't be provided to support this statement it shouldn't be included (particularly as the article is a FA). Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misread his point. He acknowledges that the claims exist, but maintains there's no verifiable evidence behind them. Given that the Vietnamese Wikipedia article both makes the claim and cites a source for the substantive point, I see no reason to reject it out of hand, and therefore believe that NPOV requires that both accounts of the death be included. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
I think 115.75.155.250 is right : here (among others), and the author called Phan Dinh Phung a patriot. (I accepted the changes and then saw this talk). Ciao. Alvar☮ 23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: I didn't saw you had previously rejected the same revision and I got an edit conflict with Nick-D here.

I'm not a specialist and won't edit this article any more. Ciao Alvar☮ 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist either. But the Vietnamese Wikipedia article cites a contrary source, and the IP provides no reason for dismissing it. Unfortunately, the Google translation of the footnote isn't clear enough for me to identify the source, which isn't online. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes it effectively unreferenced - if you haven't seen the source yourself and can't even work out what it is, it shouldn't be relied upon. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a remarkably misinformed argument. Are you really saying that because the Google Vietnamese-to-English translation of a source note is lousy that we should presume the source(s) involved aren't useable? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you (or other editors) can't verify that the reference a) says what it's claimed to say and b) is a reliable source, then its not usable in any article, and especially not in an FA. This is the basis of Wikipedia:Verifiability, so it's hardly "remarkably misinformed". If you're not aware, please note that the various Wikipedias aren't considered reliable sources so we need to go back to the actual source. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem determined to miss the point. Is there a dispute about a historical matter? Yes, everyone (perhaps excepting you) acknowledges that. Should the relevant Wikipedia article(s) reflect the existence of the dispute? Yes, that's what's required by WP:NPOV. Saying that because a particular source has been described in a non-English language, and can't immediately be tracked down by editors who don't speak that language, the source is presumed unreliable and unuseable, is wholly ungrounded in policy. Besides, whether or not the source relied on is demonstrably reliable, the dispute itself calls for coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop the name-calling? - it's really unhelpful. Can you prove that the book(?) in the Vietnamese Wikipedia article references a) exists b) is a reliable source and c) says what is referenced to it? (which is what's required for WP:V to be met). It appears that you cannot answer any of these questions at the moment, so the material in question isn't usable as the Vietnamese Wikipedia isn't a reliable source (without being able to check the book you're in effect relying on the Vietnamese Wikipedia as your source, and it - like all other Wikipedias - isn't a RS for our purposes). In short: to include this material you need to provide a reliable source for it which you're certain verifies the material. If you can find such a source, then there are no problems, but if not the material shouldn't be re-added to the article. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Feel free to have a look or add a word at vi:Thảo luận:Phan Đình Phùng; perhaps, with some luck, we could get some info. Ciao. Alvar☮ 00:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Followig my request for help on wpvi: this can help? Alvar☮ 13:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Vietnamese Wikipedia uses 2 tertiary sources (they are a textbook and a QA book which used same original sources) which cannot be reliable source at all (WP:RELIABLE#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). Moreover, the online newspapers I mentioned above are self-published newspapers of some amateur writers. Most old and new mainstream sources in Vietnam say either "Phan Dinh Phung died of illness" or simply "Phan Dinh Phung died in the war". I have never seen a book supported the claim "Phan Dinh Phung was killed by the French". And I tried my best to find an reliable sources from a reputed historians but I failed. This is the reason why I could not let this claim stay in this article until we solve "the source problem", you should keep in mind that this is a FA. If you like, I could translate the whole section from Vietnamese so that you could have some grounds to argue with me.--115.75.155.250 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nail Yakupov

I've just made edits to the page in my userspace, so it now looks a bit different than when you saw it. However, while I cannot point out an argument to the article being reasonably deleted before (I still think it's a stretch, but I can't argue it), I do now think being nominated for Rookie of the Year is a valid argument of notability. Would it be better to move the article back and, if someone still disagrees, it go back to deletion discussion? CycloneGU (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your commenting on the Kenny Rogers Short Stories deletion discussion (coincidentally another article I created) reminded me that I forgot to notify you that the Nail Yakupov article has gone back due to recreation efforts in the article space. Further, I pointed out (and bolded relevant portions of) clause 4 in WP:NHOCKEY, which OHL Rookie of the Year (the Emms Family Award) satisfies. I've kept it under Deletion Review because it was deleted initially, which another editor on the page claims should never have been done because of WP:GNG. Would you be willing to revisit the discussion and give an opinion one way or the other? Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The Other Side of Time

Hi Hullaballoo. Thanks for correcting hatnote to the correct author, but there is no article for the book. According to WP:HATNOTE, "Hatnotes should not be used for articles that do not exist since the notes are intended to point the user to another article they may have intended to find. The exception is if one intends to create the linked article immediately. In that case, consider creating the new article first, before saving the addition of the hatnote". There is an article on the author, but not the book. The same guideline applies to disambiguation pages, so if there is no article on The Other Side of Time, the book, then there should not be either a dab page or a hatnote. I'll revert the change, but this is not an edit war, this is simply following guidelines. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the guidelines involved. Hatnotes and DAB pages are intended as navigational aids, intended to provide users assistance in finding articles covering the subjects they may be looking for. So long as a relevant article exists and is used as the target of the hatnote, the precise title and scope of the article does not matter. The hatnote targets the Keith Laumer article, where the novel is even mentioned in the lede as well as identified in the body of the article. Laumer is a highly notable author (probably more notable, by at least an order of magnitude, than Mary Fahl, recentist tendencies of Google search results notwithstanding. The novel is notable, the title a plausible search term, and the hatnote points the user to the most relevant Wikipedia article. Editing guidelines like WP:HATNOTE are to be applied with "common sense"; not to be applied legalistically, to the detriment of potential users. Nothing in WP:HATNOTES requires a discrete article for the title involved, just an article a user "may have intended to find." I believe that quite squarely includes the article covering the novel's author, identifying/discussing the novel. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I do think that {{about}} would be more appropriate, though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are invited

As an editor at Nicole Kidman affected by the user in question, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Abusive, edit-warring DeadSend4. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom ruling

"Isn't there a relevant ArbCom ruling, even if not exactly applicable here, which might serve to alert one or more of the disputants about overly combative editing in this general area?"

Will you please be so kind to explain me what exactly you had in mind when you wrote above mentioned comment?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hugo awards

Thanks for helping out in updating the Hugo Award lists for the 2011 noms! --PresN 20:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Herta Müller mass AfD 'Response'

You state much more in depth and concisely what took me a long time to puzzle out and word. I'm betting you've used it in the past, and it's worth stealing borrowing for future use, if you don't mind. Dru of Id (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word. Feel free to reuse whatever you like; I liked your comment, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit of wiki Crass page 27.04.11

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, The link (http://crassunofficial.com/) that I attempted to place in the External links of the Crass page was removed by you on the pretext that it was 'per ELNO, fansite spam'. Please forgive my ignorance in not automatically knowing what 'per ELNO' (Electro-Acoustic and Communication Systems?) is but this page/link is definitely not attributable to what you have deemed as 'fansite spam'.

Given that the page/link contains information and correspondence (as does the link titled 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED (Viceland, Aug 2010) lengthy interview with Penny and Steve, 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' that precedes it) I would have thought that any more references and correspondence referring to 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' would have been a totally relevant addition to the page.

Although not stated in the page/link, I believe it to have been collated by Pete Wright an ex member of Crass, who if you had taken the time to read and investigate the link/page had strong objections (as did four other members of the band) to the reissues that are also the subject of the section titled '2010: The Crassical Collection reissues' that is already on the wiki Crass page. Thus placing this information on the Crass page gives a more balanced account of the 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' within the band.

If you consider this to be a total irrelevance to the history of the band Crass, then I stand corrected by your decision to call this 'fansite spam'. If however after a less rash consideration, you think that my edit has some merit, please reinstate the information in such a way that is consensually acceptable to you, wikipedia and more importantly, the thousands of people who were influenced in no small way by this band.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

Aaron James (pornographic actor)

Just a note that I have undeleted this article per a request at WP:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Idea

Hi. What do you think about adding imdb, myspace, playboy profile url and photographer to the Playboy Playmates Infobox, to make those list articles even more direct to the point? I specially don't like the repeated External links section on each list entry. --Damiens.rf 17:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the repeated external links sections, either, but I think they're the lesser evil in comparison to the already-oversized infoboxes. Aside from looking lousy, the big-infobox, little text sections are harder to navigate through. One thing I've tried in particular to eliminate is sections that run more than a full screen (at the standard resolution most libraries, in my experience, use). There might be a better way to do things with tables, but that's beyond my competence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Laura Bryna

Looks like you were right on Laura Bryna being notable. I sent it to WP:REFUND because I found a bunch of sources on a reliable site called Country Standard Time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

3RR

I've made the changes, got rid the NPOV tag and put a new one there. I strongly suggest you don't make the 3RR as that would be a personal attack on my character. I'd also like to point out you've yet to respond to the comments I've made in response to yours. Sleetman (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Vikcy Vette - Luke Ford fails WP:RS

How's so? I mean she did an interview and she said that she is half German and half Norwegian. Norum 17:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruling/fatwa from Jimbo Wales, "no way in hell is that site a reliable source."[91] I can't recall a specific case, but I've come across porn performers who admitted making false claims about their ethnicity for promotional reasons. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fatwa? What is that? Norum 17:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

An attempt at a humorous metaphor, "ruling" will do. That's how WP:WikiProject Pornography characterized it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, that's just a word I have not heard before....lol...still, i think that in her case, this is probably true her being half Norwegian and half German. I mean it's enough to have a look at her to know. Norum 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Jennifer Walcott

One of the playmates afds where you voted keep has been closed as a keep. As I stated on the afd, I'm greatly concerned that most (if not all) information on Jennifer Walcott is sourced either to her playboy profile, her personal homepage or her myspace page. These are unreliable sources for most kind of information.

Since you suggested in the afd that there's enough about her on google news, would you be interested in improving this article?

Within my incompetence, I could only find news articles where she's mentioned trivially in relation to her famous boyfriend.

Please, consider joining me at Talk:Jennifer_Walcott#Trivia_from_unreliable_sources for discussion about cleaning/filling the article. Your expertise is appreciated. --Damiens.rf 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Straw AfD

Hello, Your recommendation that the closing administrator take another look was right on the money. I was tempted to complain myself, but didn't want it to look like I had too much invested in the debate. Well done! Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WU LYF

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WU LYF. Robman94 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Racingstripes

Hi, Can you help me deal with this person? He keeps reverting information on Hoda Kotb back to american ethnicity. Norum 07:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Shelton High School (Connecticut)

You have not engaged in any such discussion nor provided any reason why the image is a violation. If it is obvious, surely you can explain it. Your reversions amount to edit warring, which does not require a strict violation of WP:3RR. μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what part of "nonfree image of living person" isn't clear to you? Exactly which part of the 3RR exception that reads "content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" isn't clear to you? When two users object to your use of a nonfree image, and no one has yet supported you, why do you believe it's appropriate to reinsert the image and accuse the other side of edit warring? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It was appropriate to accuse you of edit warring because neither you nor anyone else had engaged in any such discussion as of your last revert. Yes, a living person is in the picture - see the video - there are lots of them - but this is not about the person, its about the press conference held announcing the decision to reverse the ban, putting the controversy to rest. An official person acting in her official capacity cannot complain that she is a private person. Please make any response to that on the appropriate talk page. μηδείς (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

You're making it eminently clear that you don't understand NFCC, since the public/private person has no relevance there. You badly need to increase your understanding of NFCC requirements, because you just can't lift a copyrighted photo of a current event from a for-profit news business and use it on Wikipedia as a general illustration. That's nearly as bad as NFCC violations get. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI mention

You have been directly or indirectly mentioned on this ANI thread. --Damiens.rf 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Just letting you know there are no hard feelings about this. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

April March (dancer)

Hi, you moved the article to April March (dancer) and then removed the image. Why? You could have easily changed the image rationale... mabdul 08:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Abigail Tartellin

Thanks for your help, much appreciated. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Best & Co.

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Best & Co. and would sincerely appreciate your participation. I would also appreciate your clarification about whether your objection is to moving the information about a separate, unrelated topic to a separate article, or whether your objection is that the information about the second topic has effectively been deleted (since the separate article I created was deleted). I.e. do you really think the article should cover both, unrelated topics, or do you simply think the content should be preserved in some location and there is currently no better place for it? Thank you. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. First of all, as far as I can see, I've only reverted 3 times within a 24-hour period (the last time being before I posted the above), so I don't understand your accusation. Second, I really appreciated your being willing to discuss the matter with me on the Talk page, and I hope this doesn't mean that you're not going to participate any further. This whole thing has been really frustrating -- I stumbled on what appeared to be a mistake, I took what seemed to me to be the obvious solution to make it correct and thus make Wikipedia a very tiny bit better, and since then I've been battling with a) people who seem desperate to speedy-delete a fairly innocuous article, regardless of the speedy-delete criteria, when a prod or AFD would be more appropriate and work just as well, and b) people who seem completely intent on combining two separate topics into one article, without providing any explanation for why that should happen, and acting as if I'm crazy to think that they should be distinct. Your argument that the article was actually about the brand was the first time in this debacle that I've felt like another user was actually communicating with me about any of this, and while I don't agree, at least right now, with that position, I would really like to keep up a dialogue instead of being attacked or dismissed. I'm not a vandal, I'm not a troll, I'm just trying to clean up a problem. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please review the article history again. I have edited the article four times. The first time was more than 24 hours before the second time and is thus not part of the same 24-hour period. I would also note that the first person (the only person besides yourself) to add the material back was the editor who had speedy-deleted the spin-off article; he only added the material back after I attempted to discuss the matter with him, and the apparent connotation, at least as far as I could understand, was that he thought adding the material back addressed my concerns. While it is true that I have reverted multiple editors, I don't think it's correct to depict me as acting against this groundswell of editors who felt differently from me. Also, I think my edit summary gave pretty clear reasoning for why I felt the content should be removed, while your edit summary gave no reasoning at all for why you felt it should be kept; if you had suggested in your summary that you did have an actual rationale for why the article should cover both topics instead of simply saying that it should, I would have been less likely to simply revert you. Even you seem to agree with me that the article should not discuss two separate topics, since your eventually-revealed argument is that it's actually only discussing one topic, so as long as--to my knowledge--your edit was doing nothing but irrationally combining two separate topics again, I think your hostility is unwarranted.

But I don't know why I'm writing this, you clearly have no interest in understanding my position or in an actual dialogue. Then again, if I'm trying to participate in discussion--as I am--and you're refusing to do so, I think the guidelines give me some more leverage IIRC. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never said that my opinion is better than others; I've said that I've been struggling to understand anyone else's opinion, because nobody besides myself seems interested in actually explaining or discussing why they feel the way they do. Anyway, I apologize for my attempt to "personalize" the argument; I have this crazy theory that if you explain where you're coming from as a person, perhaps people might be more likely to treat you like a person instead of as a malignancy. Clearly, that is not the case here; we're not people, we're Wikipedians, am I rite? Which I'm sure is the most effective possible attitude when it comes to resolving disputes. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Samir Nasri. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JS^{Rant Away} 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should pay more careful attention. It was precisely my intention to remove content from that article, which is a BLP. By strong consensus and by policy, such biographies must be written responsibly and should be very well-sourced. Claiming that a personal relationship is "current," in 2011, based on a 2008 news report, is certainly not responsible and represents bad sourcing. Most such claims, in Wikipedia biographies, represent claims that were current when added to the article, but have been left untended for long periods of time. I note that you added this terribly-sourced, not-BLP-compliant claim to the article barely two months ago, when it was clear that a three-year-old source was not appropriate to support a claim described as "current." Rather than rudely and inaccurately defending your substandard editing, making snide edit comments, and posting borderline-insulting templates on the talk page of the editor who corrected your error, it would have been more appropriate to express thanks for cleaning up after you, or regrets for your inappropriate edit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The same thing you've accused me of (being snide, borderline-insulting, etc.,), you seem to have acquire that taste in your response. I don't understand why what I did warranted a response such as that from you. The only issue that I seem to have been "inaccurate" on is WP:DTTR, which I had no idea existed, and if you are easily offended by being issued a proper template in this situation, then I guess I apologize. From experience, a simple mention of my apparent "substandard editing" on the article's talk page would have been enough or even simply replacing the "terribly-sourced, not-BLP-compliant claim's" reference with a citation needed template would have sufficed. Coincidentally, I dealt with something similar just two days ago on Patrice Evra's article and it was handled on the talk page and the issue was solved within a matter of two hours. With all due respect, this is a non-issue to me. The statement is now hopefully, in your eyes, properly sourced. I have no time to feed a pointless conflict. Later. JS^{Rant Away} 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Why someone would think, in the context of celebrity gossip, that 2008 is "current" escapes me; you've certainly made no attempt to explain it. The claim you made was obviously not supported by the citation you gave for it. The claim has negligible encyclopedic value, and when you add something like that to an article without proper sourcing, it should be removed. If we're going to allow 2008 sourcing as "current," then George W. Bush is verifiably the current President of the US, Osama bin Laden is currently alive, etc. Don't whine about how people treat your errors when it would have taken less time to get it right than it does to whine about it afterwards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

When did I ever whine? Posting a proper template and recommending the talk page as an avenue to reach a solution is considering whining now? Whatever, dude. Does it really get that serious now on Wikipedia? Yipes! JS^{Rant Away} 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but posting an improper template, ignoring WP:BLP, and wasting everyone's time by dancing around the fact that "current" isn't supported by a citation to a years-old gossip page certainly is very poor form, and yours included whining. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving…

Have you ever thought about archiving some of this page? -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 03:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI regarding links to files

FYI: if you preface a link to a page located in a namespace other then the article namespace with a colon, then it'll just show the link. So, for files, to display the link instead of the image/sound/video/whatever, you're put [[:File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg]], which would give File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg. Sorry for the long winded explanation; I'm getting tired so it's becoming hard for me not to be verbose. ps: archive your talk page, dude! :) Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Locus question

Thanks for making my Cryoburn edits more accurate. Since it looks like you know more about the Locus Awards than I (I don't know much about them at all), I thought I'd ask for elaboration. On the main Vorkosigan Saga page, in the Awards and nominations section, some of the books are listed as Locus nominees (which is what I was patterning my Cryoburn edit after). Is this incorrect? Bujold also referred to Cryoburn's current Locus Award status as being a nominee[92], which is making me even more confused.

Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether the other Vorkosigan award listings need to be changed, or whether the five-finalist thing is close enough to the nominee thing done by other awards that a short format list such as the one in the article could use "nominee" as a shorthand for referring to the Locus finalists. Thanks! Princess Lirin (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand where all the stuff about "nominations" comes from. Locus gives its awards strictly on the basis of its readers' poll; I vote in it just about every year. The poll is open for several months, both by mail for those who get hardcopies of the magazine, which include a ballot, and online, at the Locus website. There's just one round of voting, and no nomination process -- you can vote for anything published in the previous year. Lately Locus has been announcing the top five votegetters in each category a month or so before its award ceremony, But the votes are already counted and the winners determined. If you look at the Locus announcement (which is linked on Bujold's blog) you'll see that Locus never uses words like "nominee" or "nomination."

"Finalist" is certainly more accurate than "nominee" here, but better still for the articles could be listing the actual places the works got in the polls, which can be found on the Locus website, year by year But "finalist" is probably clearer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind and as I continue working on Vorkosigan Saga page, I'm going to see if I can incorporate the actual poll ranking numbers instead of using the "nominee" terminology. Or at the very least rephrase with "finalist".

Minor related question: Worlds Without End, which I'm not familiar with but which is used for some of the citations in the Awards section, also refers to Locus nominees, (e.g. here) which I assume is the same winner and other four top vote-getters. My best guess is that they didn't want to deviate from the site's formatting by labeling it as something other than nominees. But between this and the fact that it shows Blackout instead of Blackout/All Clear as 2010 Nebula winner/2011 Hugo nominee, I'm wondering if the site is a sufficiently reliable source. So I was curious, do you know anything about this website, and do you have an opinion on whether it's a good source? Thanks, Princess Lirin (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Thank you for your suggestions. See my reply, at diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism)#Suggestions_from_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Summer Cummings

Hello. I see you replaced the G4 tag. The thing is back at AFD, so why was it improper to remove the G4 tag? An argument could be made that it's "not substantially identical to the deleted version." Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If somebody actually made that argument, preferably with a brief explanation, I wouldn't have replaced the tag. Most of the time I think it's generally OK to remove a speedy, but I think if you're going to pull a repost or copyvio tag, you need to explain. See my comments to the user who removed the tag, saying only the article was "legit".[93] My recollection is that the deleted version had a bit more information, and stronger claims to notability, than the current one; the archive.org copy also suggests that. Basically, I think that, absent an explanation, the tag shouldn't be removed without being checked by an admin. The explanation doesn't have to be a big deal, just saying "I don't think this claim was in the original article" would usually be good enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, the deleted version is probably stronger, and the TV appearances not as notable as could be hoped for. Where might one find the relevant policy/guideline, particularly re: DRV?173.171.149.206 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not helping

This edit revert was counterproductive. 107.4.30.154 (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

That all happened while I was asleep. By the way, your contributions at Santorum are, in my opinion, the clearest and most insightful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your helpful addition of secondary source material to the article Slaves of Sleep. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ballantine268.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ballantine268.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Amy Grant's page

Hello. Reverting each other's edits over and over isn't something I would love to do, but the "practice" does show that if artists have their own discography pages, it's enough to only list their studio albums in the pages and use {{main}} template. Amy Grant released dozens of albums and over 70 singles, yet it's not necessary to list all of them. You can see it by checking discography sections in these articles: WP:FA#Music_biographies. I will be sure to create the List of awards and nominations received by Amy Grant page to reduce the amount of information that consists of lists. And I highly recommend to use explanations in edit summary line to avoid misunderstandings. --Cannot (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User: Pinkmermaid - Page: Regina Russell

I noticed some of the editing history on the page for Regina Russell and the following paragraph is all unsourced: "She also does hosting, and fashion and style segments as a celebrity style expert.[5] [6] She closed her store but continued to raid celebrity closets and auction clothing for charity on various TV shows." I do not see any recent press on the sourced link showing that she currently does hosting and style segments or anything showing she currently "raids celebrity closets and auctions clothing for charity on various TV shows". The last press item is dated August 2007, which means she previously did hosting and segments. User: Pinkmermaid is the subject editing her own page, removing nessesary calls for refs. This is all self sourced and self promotion, without any outside input at all. Your edits were justified and the user reverted them back to her edits once again. Also the Official Website listed takes me to the MySpace page of Regina Russell. Is MySpace considered as someone's official website? It should be referenced as her MySpace page not as an official Website. The page is protected so I can't make any edits. --Writeitup (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see on the page for Regina Russell that user:Pinkmermaid removed your edit stating she is billed in the movie Hook. According to IMDB her "role" was as "Mermaid" and NOT "Red Headed Mermaid". That "role" is not first billed, it is a 6 second scene that is EXTRA work and not a "billed role" as user:Pinkmermaid is saying it is. This is the entire scene and it isn't even notable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrYYqYfEhPo --Writeitup (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, this person above is the very same person that has been vandalizing my page in the feud you mentioned. The person doesn't even know what "billing" and "first billed" even means. First billing means the ONE actor who is listed first in a films credits. i.e Tom Cruise in Top Gun. No on uses the term "unbilled". The industry standard term is "uncredited" which means the actors name is not listed in the credits. The scene is a minute and a half and what difference does it make? My name is in the credits. I am credited in that and Hollywood Homicide. The user above is just trying to harass and get real editors to do her dirty work. I will source the TV appearances but how does one do so? It's on my IMDB is that good enough. I don't know any other listings of TV appearances.Pinkmermaid (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The two of you need to take your squabble off Wikipedia, permanently. Both of you have made inappropriate edits to each other's articles; both of you have used/abused multiples accounts/IPs. Your own articles, and others, have had to be semiprotected, there has been at least one SPI, and you two have caused multiple editors and administrators to waste too much time trying to sort these things out. I may yet ask for formal intervention.

Pinkmermaid, the editor now using the Writeitup account has not, so far as I can tell, acknowledged any real-world identification on Wikipedia. It's therefore generally a violation of the WP:OUTING policy to refer to her on-Wikipedia by any form of that name. Don't do it again, in discussion, in article text, or in edit summaries.

As for the term "unbilled," I use it in a way reflecting my long-ago work in the music business, it more or less lines up (as an opposite) with the way IMDB uses "first-billed" -- which quite clearly doesn't match the way you use it above. And IMDB is generally not acceptable as a source for claims that might likely be challenged; for convenience's sake, we tolerate its use as a source on more well-known credits, but not when the importance of a credit is disputed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Standage

Hey HW, as you seem to be quite familiar with these accounts, you might be interested in this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage Cheers, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've endorsed your comments, and added one more potential sock account. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with a persistant notability evasion

Hi HW, I need some help/advice... The Chris Webby page was deleted in January 2011 for lack of notability yet now it is in this user's profile... and is not being improved since it's creation on 31 January 2011 (around the original article's deletion). A prior speedy delete tag in Feb 2011 was erased because "he's known by millions" and was apparently not followed up for some reason. It is being linked by Myspace and other social media, so it's being used as an advertisement of sorts. (I googled ""Chris Webby" +Metzfolife", but I can vouch that [94] and [95] work.) There's another copy here too at User:Penn12/Chris_Webby and I'm not really sure what to do about this as it's not the sort of thing I usually deal with. Can you help? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there's something odd going on here. I'm not sure just how to handle it -- it looks at first glance that somebody's using multiple accounts -- and I'll look into it further, shortly. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to help out in whatever way I can. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metzfolife/Chris Webby was added to XXL (magazine) on the 15th by 205.200.234.204 & 184.100.67.229. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metzfolife/Chris Webby was added to Sam Adams (musician) on the 16th by 67.4.153.84. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny - thanks for the laugh

Thanks for your change at Kristin Chenoweth. I laughed out loud when I saw your username. I don't know what it means, but it struck me as funny. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk

You edited the "Girls By Design" site out from the edit I made. Here is a YouTube link to her being associated with the site: search "Kristin Kreuk and Kendra Voth - ET Canada" on YouTube - she officially posted blogs on her site back in the day and I linked to it when adding her personal life and her saying she didn't eat meat, as well as the fact that the owns a dog named Dublin. It's on the replies section and is confirmed by the company's facebook/twitter pages. If you have any questions, please let me know if you intend on editing the page Marty2Hotty (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are not reliable, secondary sources as required by WP:RS and WP:BLP. Some of them are rather badly dated, "back in the day," as you put it. If matters are not covered in reliable sources, independent of the article subject, they typically lack encyclopedic significance, and are not appropriate to include in Wikipedia articles. Biographical articles should not be encumbered with information which lacks encyclopedic significance, and are not repositories for summaries of subjects' blog entries, twitter feeds, or other transient content. That some articles may not meet this standard at any given time is not justification for diluting others. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

- The thing is the "Girls by Design" part is actually on the wikipedia article and was part of the references. I just put the very same website as the External Links. It cannot be more reliable than the direct source of the biographical figures actual website, which Kristin is still a very much a part of. For this particular biographical figure, she is part of the site, as per the About, and I know people directly involved with her that confirms that as well. She still has her dog and doesn't eat meat anymore. I added additional links (BC Hydro) which are secondary sources confirming she lives in Vancouver and September 2010 picture of that BC Hydro article has her picture with her dog. Update: for Hill Zaini "I heard" music video. I found a link that directs to his Wikipedia page that shows Kristin Kreuk as starring in it. I linked it even though she is prominently in the music video on the YouTube link. That would settle most if not all the edits. Many references added. Please let me know if you have more questions Marty2Hotty (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:JBrunnerQS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JBrunnerQS.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Game On (music video)

Would you reconsider your decline of speedy deletion of Game On (music video). Your comments on declining it indicated that db-web could not be used on a song, however this article is about the music video and is focused on the video's presence on You Tube which makes it appropriate for db-web.--RadioFan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It's apparently sold/distributed through iTunes, for example. I don't think the limits of db-web are solidly established, but a creative work sold via iTunes clearly falls outside them. Maybe the article would be better moved to "Game On (song)", which might more accurately reflect the content, but that surely wouldn't justify speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem

Hey, I see that you and a variety of others keep reverting my edits and are not giving a valid reason. "Defrag, "As before"? These do not tell me anything about what the full on problem is. Why do all of you have a problem with all my edits and don't tell me those reasons that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I really would like to understand this problem and see what we can do to solve it. Write me back as soon as you can. 173.61.170.148 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You should recognize that when multiple experienced editors repeatedly revert your edits that you are out of step with Wikipedia practice. Chopping article sections up into one-sentence fragments and separating related texts with unrelated intervening sections is bad practice. Making dozens of edits a day without using any edit summaries is bad practice. Repeatedly reverting back to changes that other editors object to is bad practice. Plunging ahead and repeating this behavior is bad practice. Wikipedia runs on consensus and policy, and making changes, over and over, which have no basis in policy and run contrary to consensus and practice is not a good idea. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?!

Dude, cut it out!! Why are you reverting every edit I do?! You are not explaining this problem and I have not even made an attempt to talk to me or explain yourself!! Why do keep reverting my edits, huh? Saying "defrag" does not tell me one thing! I want to settle this issue but you want talk to me!! Since the beginning you have reverted my edits and I have had enough!! Talk to me so we can settle this issue. 173.61.170.148 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Go away. It's obviously false to say I'm reverting "every edit" you make, and saying I "have not even made an effort" to talk to you ignores what's plain as day in my reply, immediately above, to your previous post here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what "defrag" even means and I meant talk on "my" talk page. You have reverted all my edits, every second I make an edit you change it. I not saying I'm right, I'm saying you are are being a huge pain. Talk on MY talk page so I know you are writing to me and so we can settle this. 173.61.170.148 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't have an individual talk page; you've been jumping IPs, and you have no business complaining that people answer your questions where you post them. I don't see any constructive intent here, just edit warring against multiple editors in order to degrade articles.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "IJethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still Troy (Pastor Troy album)

I thought to bring this to your attention. I tagged the above referenced article as an A10, since removed by you, making an edit summary which states, "remove speedy, appears to be legit spinout". Since the article is an exact copy of the Still Troy article, I would like to invite you to revisit the removal of the A10, in lieu of escalating to another deletion process. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. The desired response would be for you to consider replacing the A10. Personally, I'm thinking you may have been sleepwalking or something when you initially removed it. I kinda got a chuckle out of it. Cind.amuse 13:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Surrey Marshe

Why do you keep reverting my edit under the information reagrding Surrey Marshe ? Surrely Marshe real name is Solveig Mellomborgen, wich clearly is a Norwegian name. She was misslabelled by Playboy as being from aalborg, Denmark, but was really 100 % Norwegian. She was only a student in Aalborg, Denmark at the time of her discovery by Playboy. The ncorrect nationality of this person is that of one being from the country of Norway. In other worlds Norwegian. Not Danish from Denmark.

I have added a source in Norwegian:

http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/side3/article2981685.ece

This source in Englishwas not blocked by Wiki for some reason:

www.associatedcontent.com/article/245372/playboy_centerfolds_from_the_1960s_pg3.html?cat=38

Please do not revert again

Mortyman (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

Please see this edit of mine. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Helena Christensen 2

Labelling something "unencyclopedic" doesn't make it so. Her publicly, and multiply documented and sourced statements are decidedly "encyclopedic." I'm reverting your "agree" deletion as inadequately explained and undiscussed, and out of step with long-standing agreement by many, many other editors. That someone (perhaps) canvassed you for help does nothing to support your position. I won't be silent in the face of deletion of sourced content. Discuss in Talk:Helena Christensen. --Lexein (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No. "She is a cheese lover," or whatever variation of this nonsense currently infests the article, isn't encyclopedic, and now that another editor has noticed you shouldn't unilaterally keep reinstating it. Absent a reasonable response at the article talk page, I see this as nothing but vapid edit warring. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No. She stated she is a cheese lover, and the rather diverse sources (in both type and time period) support the claim. It's completely appropriate to resist removal of reliably sourced material, even if you and some other drive-by deletionist don't like it. --Lexein (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This debate has taken place, over different parts of the article, on at least one prior occasion; no other editor has ever supported your position. It is completely inappropriate to edit war, and to make insinuations about editors who disagree with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of celebrity trivia, sourced or unsourced. Repeatedly inserting disputed content by a single editor, over the objections of multiple editors, is edit warring. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the previous debate took place with you. No other editors were involved, and there is no need for any other editor to "support my position" since my position was then, and is now, sound. Re-deletion following commencement of discussion was the actual edit warring. But don't take my word for it, I hope other editors will remind you of this. I "inserted" nothing, for the simple reason that reversion of an unjustified deletion of long-standing, well-sourced, and undisputed content (by any _other_ editors), and reversion of a deletion made after discussion commenced, cannot fairly be labeled "insertion". The subject of the article made these claims about herself, on multiple occasions, to multiple sources. Not much debate about that. --Lexein (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's quite clear that in the prior dispute I was not the only editor opposing your position [96]. Weird semantics are no substitute for policy and guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

3RRN

Good. I look forward to some attention by independent editors, some of whom might be inclusionists, and some of whom might be deletionists. I look forward to their correction of your misunderstanding of 3RR, and your false characterization of "insert", "all" and inappropriate claim of "dubious noteworthiness." Do stop falsely characterizing my legitimate actions as editor against unjustified deletionism. I've done no "insertions", only reverting repeated deletions, which continued after discussion was begun. Your use of "all" exaggerates the number of editors actually discussing - it's two: you and I. The other seems to have bowed out. My edit history will stand up to any scrutiny you may wish to bring. Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Krista page

My sister knew her in school in NY. Why did you remove the reference to her real name?!?!? Put it back on the page.

No. Read WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. What your sister tells you is not acceptable as a Wikipedia source. Also read [WP:3RR]] if you're thinking about putting this unsourced stuff back in again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Amber Benson

Hi, Hullaballoo. Can you explain to me how the length of the video clip is a relevant criterion, or the fact that it's two years old? Since when are sources deemed invalid for either of these reasons?

Also, can you explain to me how the material constitutes "gossip", given that Benson herself is the one who mentions that she was dating Busch, and did so without any prompting from her interviewers, as it was something she mentioned in passing while answering an unrelated question about her work on Drones? Since Busch directed Drones with her, the fact that she mentions him as "my boyfriend" is rather understandable, and hardly "gossip".

If you are not convinced by my arguments, we can move this discussion to the article talk page, and invite others. Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin, rap star

Hi, with respect to this edit: Actually, I think User:SupremeCommander85 was referring to this. Nonetheless, I agree with your undo. It's worth a mention in the article (and so it is, under "Retirement"), but it's not lede-worthy. Aldrin is not known for this one incident, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it there. I do like your edit summary, though. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Buh!

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you want to delete everything about sex. That´s so obvious. So your pseudo-talk is just trash. Can you explain how your mother got pregnant, please? Oh she was pollinated by the air...interesting. --178.25.2.105 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Country singers images

I think it might be better to wait for a consensus before removing the images. (That is, a third opinion other than Dekkappai's tl;dr filibuster that does little but insult a whole genre with wildly inaccurate stereotypes.) I know you always have the best interests of Wikipedia policy in mind, but I honestly think that at the very least, James Bonamy and Nitty Gritty Dirt Band are exceptions that should be further analyzed by the community first. No two NFCC cases are exactly alike, after all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I would think that the Blackhawk image is fine. Shenandoah (band) went to GA with a non-free image of a previous lineup. (And I would think that one of the guys in the Blackhawk picture being dead would be reason alone to justify its use.) Again, I think this one should be discussed more before removal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• He's doing it so persistently that I think something should be done to put a stop to it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

"Delete all the country music articles except for Johnny Cash and Burl Ives". Yeah, I was obviously deadly serious there. Anyway, with all the weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and laying-on of wreaths on the grave of another editor's slain ego over my obviously Andy Kaufmanesque rant, one minor thing is being overlooked: It was meant to needle you. I don't even know the other guy ferchrissakes! (He works on country articles? I thought you did.) So why don't you pick out yourself nice little a barnstar and affix my name to it? The "I ducked the coconut cream pie and the guy behind me got it in his face" barnstar or something. Wouldn't it be great if this thing gets me banned? All the BS I've slung at you, and some guy gets his feathers ruffled over an obvious joke that wasn't even directed at him. Yep, that would wrap up my career here in a perfect little bow. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fizz off, you old flipper. You were just ripping off Chuck D. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, any more talk like that, me & some of my opera buds'll come over & raise hell! (And I have no idea who Chuck D is, so he stole from me. The fizzin' flipper.) Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You really want to resort to threatening to block me?

This is a dynamic IP old man. As soon as you block this IP, I'm jumping to a new one. You'll just screw another user who adopts this IP address at some later point, I have 255^4 possible numbers to use. Good luck winning this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.192.243 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I'm using Huggle and tried to tag Political candidates and elected officials opinions on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for speedy deletion just as it was changed to a redirect. So sorry about the mistake, I was about to undo it, thanks for taking care of it for me. -Vcelloho (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Klineoa-portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Klineoa-portrait.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dian Parkinson

Why did you edit the Dian Parkinson bio as of 7/15/11 ? You work in a school library and you have time to edit articles,what kind of job do you have? The information was correct idiot! To be honest you seem to me your the type of person I woudnt trust around kids your editing articles on a sex symbol who appeared nude in Playboy and appeared in a Playboy soft porn video during school hours and you have a history of it,why? is it because you have a perverted crush on her like a teenager ?, I cant believe it! Your a frequent contributor to Wiki and your worried about Dian Parkinson's reputation who really are you wierdo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.194.76 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear a bit confused about identities. Based on the IP for your edits to the article, you were editing from the New York City public school system's network. Therefore, you should have posted on this on your own talk page and left me out of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Axel Braun

Hey Hullaballoo--will you consider leaving a message on the editor's talk page, explaining why their edits don't pass muster? Some editors don't read edit summaries very often, and it would help if edit-warring and other disruption ensues. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell merger

I realize this is a little ironic to ask, but do you have any objections to me following WP:BOLD and merging unsourced books from the series into the main page? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objections; I nearly did it myself. If I remember correctly, some of the later anthology articles don't have contents information in them, which you can find at [www.isfdb.org ISFDB]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done and done (phew, my hands are tired). The page unfortunately did not provide additional content information for the books that were missing. I did not move all the books, just the ones that were missing references or whose references were poor at supporting notability. You are welcome to help clean up the page a bit. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courcelles 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Marcus Bachmann

Hi. I notice you are quite experienced with BLP's. I know you already voted on the AfD for Marcus, but would you mind commenting over at Talk:Marcus Bachmann#BLP concerns and sharing your wisdom? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Generally speaking, it's best not to request Revision Delete of content like that in open forums, such as talk pages. I've forwarded the issue along to the oversight team, though I'm not sure it's necessary. Thanks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Axel Braun

While I applaud your perseverance, I am quite saddened by your lack of anything better to do with your life.Please stop vandalizing the Axel Braun page. The awards that you keep deleting are ALL legitimate, documented and very important to the Adult film community, of which obviously you don't know much. Axel Braun is a prominent Adult producer and director, and your constant vandalism is inexplicable.

Hello Cousin!

Hi Hullaballoo!

Nice to see another "Wolfowitz"!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi Hullaballoo, This is Patrick Reynolds, the anti-smoking advocate and former actor. I wanted to thank you for your kind advice on the Discussion page of my bio at Wikipedia, and to let you know that I have indeed been editing it. I wanted to make it more accurate, add in some little known facts about my life, and correct the few errors in the earlier version there. You're right that I am not skilled at doing things the way Wikipedia likes best; but I will take your advice and stop making edits and adding outside links to the page. My intention was just to make more info available to anyone who may want it. I dont have time to learn how to edit the page in the preferred manner, nor do I have the funds to pay someone to help me do that. I am done making changes now, and hope it will remain pretty much as it is. It seems odd to me that they classify me as an Actor, when I am a former actor. These days I am an advocate, motivational speaker, and author. If you are able to reclassify me under any of those instead of Actor, that would be wonderuful, and make the page more accurate. Further, if there are changes you know how to make to my bio there to help to get it out of the "Stub" Bio class, that would be wonderful. It's really a first class account of my whole life at this point, and some of the links and info in it are not available anywhere else. I'd be pleased to talk to you, if you wish to contact me. Thanks and all the best to you, Patrick Reynolds 2Patrick2 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Caprice Bourret

Ugh, this COI editor! Would you like to chime in on the recent edits?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The never-ending struggle. I've hacked out a pile of promotional stuff that I think goes back to that editor, mostly stuff sourced to the subject's own website, and added some citation tags. If I've used my machete on anything you thing was worthwhile, feel free to add it back (except the copyvio refs, of course). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I was really hoping to put back those copyvios. :P  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Have a look at this http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Freddie_Mercury&diff=441598984&oldid=441412408 ..two editors removed this (you being one and stating it was promotional/approaching the spamline, and another stating the link was unreviewed). It doesn't look in any way notable for inclusion. The person who inserted it created the link, a minor play that contains nothing about Mercury and no Queen material (just some imaginary afterlife). Freddie Mercury impersonators who play at rock concerts looks more notable than this does.MusoForde (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for taking those AFDs to ANI. Appreciate the support very much. Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks for your prompt and very effective action. It's good to know that somebody has my back. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the Standage IPs is back in action

Just FYI, 68.167.21.82 has come back to life and it's still acting like a troll/vandal. You even get a name check in this edit. This edit shows the user's true intentions. Robman94 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I've responded to your post at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Redlinking_to_personal_names after the paragraph you wrote became the justification for a tendentious edit war at Western Australian state election, 1933. If you could review the situation I would be most grateful. Orderinchaos 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Norma Stitz vandal

Okay, they've been well warned IMO. If they readd the information again today (which I suspect they will) report them to AIV for blocking. I'm giving you a heads-up as you're more active than I am these days and are more likely to encounter the change first. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, You edited Some of my comments on Kate Lawlers page a couple of months ago. I wasn't sure why, as they were all factually correct, I left a comment in Discussions, but you haven't noticed. Kate has recetly posted on her kerrang wall that her show is the biggest rated show on Kerrang, I would have edited that in, but I fear you'd just edit it out. [edit] Lawlers Djing career

kate's clubbing career has been going on for some years now, I thought I would mention it. I didn't really think it was contentious, so didn't add sources. Here are some:

http://www.toolroomrecords.co.uk/artists/kate-lawler http://www.framed-records.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/essentialmix/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20080705 http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/213/31809958.jpg http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/exclusive-interview-kate-lawler-interview-on-radio/fqFtsTolW6WY9hPhhtjP2g

Also her show at Kerrang does start at 15.00 hours nowadays, just check the radio-listings.

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong it's my first attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 (talk)

Replied at article talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (16,032 bytes) (→Reception: It did not. It included it in an apparently comprehensive list of shared-world anthology series that weren't spun off from media/gaming properties) (undo)

Heroes in Hell discussion - If you read the paragraph, it starts off with the most famous SCI FI shared worlds (Star Trek and Dr. Who - suspect since no mention of Star Wars and many other SF SWs), then lists the most famous Horror - Lovecraft Cthulhu Mythos, then lists 14 Fantasy SWs. The next paragraph mentions 1 gaming SW - Dragonlance. The list of 14 is not comprehensive, it is a judgement from a reputable source on famous SW in the Fantasy genre since it is an encyclopedia about FANTASY. I take offense at the insinuation I am a liar - I was merely trying to establish notability by the company the work keeps from a reputable source. I have restated the sentence to re-assert this fact hopefully more to your liking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk: Heroes in Hell.
Message added 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Proposals for dealing with Gilgamesh's talk page.
Message added 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Help for the newbs..

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell insanity

I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean to slight your efforts and, in my opinion, extensive research into this matter through my proposals. I just wanted to reach a consensus on this before it got out of hand. Some editors have mentioned that it might be possible to provide the actual contract via scans. Would you be receptive to reconsidering your position depending on what rights were written on there? Honestly, I do not think it is important to explain the difference between first serial and reprint in this case when the differences do not seem substantial. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given this some thought. I highly doubt we are going to arrive at a consensus on the discussion page, and I presume the page will be the subject of edit warring in the future between you and other editors. So, I've opened up a dispute resolution page. Maybe there we can clear this up. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Reemergence of the Gilgamesh Non-Consensus

Gee, I thought this issue was settled. I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view, the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challenged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview he cited; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy and credibility of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into.

I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs)

Sarah Young

So I gather Sarah Young was deleted because a similar article was deleted long ago? I thought it was both notable, and sourced, but I guess because of its history here, I need to go through the additional stuff at WP:DRV?

That part aside, I don't think it should redirect to Cloud Cult; there are at least three Sarah Young's more notable than her. Also, shouldn't what links here been checked first? I don't think any of them are related to Cloud Cult. --Juventas (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Sarah Young wan't deleted. It was reverted back to the state it was in before you replaced its content with a re-edited version of the text of a deleted article being worked on in userspace. The Sarah Louise Young DAB page you created was deleted because it failed basic rules concerning DAB pages; it did not distinguish between two or more existing articles. The "What Links Here" page you cite does not involve the deleted DAB page, but to the surviving article; the "What Links Here" page for the deleted page shows no article space links or other links requiring action. Please take more care when editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saddened you would rather retort behind semantics, than help an aspiring editor. We both know Sarah Young was reverted to a redirect. At no point did I mention Sarah Louise Young or a DAB page. If you actually looked at the link I provided, you would see Sidcup, List of British pornographic actors, and Café de Paris (London) are linking Sarah Young which now redirects to Cloud Cult. None of those articles are intending to reference Cloud Cult. As for my questions you didn't answer, I'll look elsewhere for help. --Juventas (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with creating those links, or with the article involved. All I did was to undo your substitution of the text of a deleted article for the content of an existing page regarding a different person. If you've got a list of badlinks, just delink the articles. You don't need anybody's help or permission to do that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hell and insanity

You are welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Janet Morris

I'd like you to read the post that Ms Morris just made to my talk page. This is not an invitation to have a dispute with her there; rather, it is an invitation to look at what she says when she does not feel (rightly or otherwise) that she is being persecuted.

Leaving aside her comment about you 'having an agenda', which is a statement I will ask her to retract, I feel that you and she have the common goal of improving Wikipedia's information about the HoH series. As such, you should be able to cooperate. Okay? DS (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI It's nice you have so much time on your hands, but please leave wikipedia. We don't need damn fools editing here. Your net contribution is far too negative. The BALLS you have (!) wasting tens, perhaps hundreds of people's time over a minor technical dispute. HAVE YOU NO SHAME??? When in doubt, remember WP:IAR, which far too many editors don't understand! If you're arguing... you're acting wrong. GROW UP. // FrankB 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm always impressed by people who try to demonstrate their greater maturity by posting uncivil, derogatory personal comments in CAPITAL LETTERS. You can be sure I'll give your advice the weight it deserves. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Thank you for the heads up. I would have missed it if you hadn't mentioned it to me. Cordova829 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Just wanted to give you fair warning that you are teetering very close to violating WP:3RR on Heroes in Hell. I know this discussion is long and plodding, but getting yourself blocked over this publication debacle is not really worth it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been quite careful about 3RR throughout these long discussions. However, I do think that the IP-hopper here is clearly acting in bad faith, and that his/her claiming I've somehow "modified" Google Books scans and US Copyright Office online records is a signal of vandalism rather than legitimate editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock

Did you notice the similarity between these edits?: [97], [98], and the fact that those statements are tied to yet another IP's contributions? I've opened up an SPI. This is too much. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jared Leto

On the talk page there's nothing about this version. The sources I used are reliable and the material is encyclopedic (per WP:BLP). You are currently removing sourced material without reason. I think you should see featured articles as Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt to understand that you're doing vandalism (and also an edit war).--Earthh (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There were three editors supporting removal of the material, two of whom made their opinions of it quite clear on the talk page. When you're alone in wanting in it in, you need to get consensus to add it back (absent a clear and important policy argument); just insisting on your newest bottle for the same lousy old wine won't cut it, nor will pointing out other articles that could be improved by similar deletions of subpar content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Status update/storm

Due to the anticipated imminent arrival of Hurricane Irene, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted once this morning (Saturday), and both my area and the area where my ISP operates are expected to be subject to power outages later today, possibly extended outages. So I'm quite likely not to be editing for a while, even after I finish off storm preparations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Harmonia1 AN/I thread hatted

I've {{hat}}ted the AN/I thread. I don't see anything else useful coming from it, given that Hulcys appears to be soapboxing. I've also left her a message that her attacks against you are not acceptable, and she will stop making them.

I do, however, want to respond briefly to your comment about the proposed compromise being unacceptable. I'm going to try not to lecture, because that'd be a dick thing to do to someone who knows this as well as I do. There are some things worth being stubborn about here, but this isn't one of them. It's just not a big deal. So, regardless of whether or not you like consensus, which you seem to be the only person against, please just drop it and move on. Regardless, I am going to wash my hands of the content issue. Cheers, and have a great weekend away from Wikipedia, even if it is because of a hurricane. lifebaka++ 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Guarddog2

I hope you survived the storm okay. Whenever you come back, Guarddog2 has posted some extensive comments on her userpage to which I've responded (see User talk: Guarddog2#Clarification as requested by Qwyrxian). I, Jethrobot also commented to me about those points on my talk page (see User talk:Qwyrxian#Guarddog2. It is my opinion that, while her story is not a definitive answer, it is, at least, believable. As such, I don't believe we have enough evidence to firmly block her as a duck of Harmonia1.

Also, as I mentioned in both places, I never actually looked at the pages in question or the DRN associated with HIH. I don't have too much time to do so now, but if there is something specific that you believe I can assist on, I will try to do so. As you'll see, one thing I said to Guarddog2 is that even though I think that there is insufficient connection to the prior Janet Morris case to justify action on that end, the general atmosphere, which may indicate off-wiki collusion, may still be enough of a problem to warrant further action. So let me know if there's something you'd like help monitoring, or discussing, or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mandingo_(person)

"By longstanding and unmistakeable consensus, IAFD is not an acceptable source for such content in a BLP"

Link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanuckMike (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

From RSN, for example [99] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The example you have provided is a question from one editor and a response, in personal opinion form, from another. That's not concensus by any stretch or twist. In fact, the opposite was proffered: User:Tabercil felt that the site was a valid source for some material. Are there any other policy/guideline/concensus/noticeboard links that you can provide to show this "longstanding and unmistakeable consensus"? CanuckMike (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was just a hair away from reverting this addition as well. The site's reliability is dubious at best. ThemFromSpace 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining. Can you please explain (or link to) why you feel the site's reliability is dubious at best? CanuckMike (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over this site, I see no information on who compiles the material or what sources are used to compile it. I also don't think it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that our reliable sources should have. If you want further discussion you could ask at the reliable sources noticeboard to try and establish a consensus. ThemFromSpace 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity journalism

Thanks for you comment on BLP Notice page. I thoroughly agree with your sentiments. What can we do to improve the celebrity BLP's overall? Are to forums where these types of issues are being discussed. I would like to actively participate. --BweeB (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal life section of BLP

I am curious as to why you removed some info from Shriya Saran. Is it not proper to talk about the people that the subject is or has dated, especially if they are not married? That is certainly a big part of "personal life", no? Can you point me to some guidelines on what to, and what to not, include? BollyJeff || talk 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a recuurring discussion, which pretty uniformly comes out the same way. See this example from last week [100] at BLPN and the followup talk page discussion regarding Jessica Biel. The examples GRuban gives are pretty useful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I did not mention any names, just saying that she dates men, as opposed to the alternative, ya know. I see even FAs out there with plenty of dating info, see Kirsten_Dunst#Personal_life, Preity_Zinta#Personal_life, Reese_Witherspoon#Personal_life for example. Are these all wrong too? BollyJeff || talk 16:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI - BLPN

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback - your contributions to this article have been mentioned in this report. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Playboy Playmate - Playmate firsts - Ursula Buchfellner

You said unsourced. I found it in Teri Weigel's article first and also in Ursula Buchfellner's article including a reference (IMDB).

You also said unimportant. I fail to see how it's less important than being first xxx-born pm or first pm born in the 4/.../90s or first pm w/o pubic hair/with a tattoo. But of course YYMV.

Would it make sense to add her to "Notable Playmates" section like Teri Weigel? After all, Ursula has also done some b-movie work. 79.222.24.179 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

JWOWW

Why did you undo my changes to the JWOWW article, specifically citing the source as a problem? She describes the incident in that video and there are multiple episodes of the series where she has had similar bathroom issues. Furthermore, why is it that incontinence "lacks encyclopedic significance"? Is there some new Wikipedia guideline against taboo subject matter?KlappCK (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was written in fanprose, it's based on a primary source with no evidence of secondary coverage, and if she does regularly get so drunk she's incontinenr, the appropriate disorder to link to would be substance abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to include the comments with an additional source, assuming good faith. You are welcome to change wording to point to substance abuse at your leasure. See these pages for my motivations for doing so:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sourcing_For_Biographies_of_Living_Persons

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ulrika_Jonsson#Personal_life

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Helena_Bonham_Carter#Personal_life

Content like this about living persons has been allowed in the past, and it appears to reasonably satisfy the sourcing requirements given the nature of the subject. Cheers.KlappCK (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

please...

before undoing edits, please check what you are undoing. do you believe "candice" does not have any surname? what about the information i added to the persondata? that is obviously useful and doesn't require a reference since it's already in the article. guess you thought i was a new user, then please note: not every edit by a new user is vandalism. Durchschnittspornöse (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

you claim that "IMDB is by strong consensus not a reliable source for such biographical information". but for most real names of porn actresses and actors, there is no other source in the article. where do i find the discussion the result of which was that imdb is not a source for such information? --Durchschnittspornöse (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Start here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Real_names_of_performers Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

alright, thank you. --Durchschnittspornöse (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Leto

You are currently doing an edit war. One of the rule states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." First, there is no consensus to remove that material; it is sourced by reliable sources and is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. So why remove it? The article needs to be improved, and removing sourced material improves nothing. With your version there are things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). Having been told he supported Obama's candidacy in the 2008 election, what does it add to the reader's understanding that he and his bandmates wore Obama T-shirts at one ceremony? Second, a the peer review there is a consensus to keep that content. Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate, so you have to expose your reasons at the peer review if you don't agree with the consensus. This version represents consensus among editors therefore I will revert one more time.--Earthh (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping until you get a "consensus" of one hardly outweighs the on-article consensus, which exists despite your solo disagreement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the peer review. Best regards.--Earthh (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Careful

What you said here - well, I'm not going to address the topic of fairness to the late Brian Thomsen, but I do think that it is not the wisest choice for "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" to criticize other people for editing Wikipedia under pseudonyms. I politely suggest that you redact or retract that portion of your post. DS (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree. My objection isn't to editing under a pseudonym. It's to making a cowardly, groundless attack on a real-world-identified person, unfairly smearing the reputation of somebody who can't respond, out of entirely venal motives, while hiding behind a pseudonym. I don't make gratuitous personal attacks on dead folks, here or anywhere else. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity, may I ask what 'entirely venal motives' you mean? DS (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost without exception, the new editors who've shown in in these Janet Morris-related disputes are amateur or semi-professional writers who've sold stories to her, or are trying to sell stories to her, and seem either to be trying to curry favor with her and/or trying to promote books their work appears in. I can see no legitimate reason for implying that simply because Thomsen had on occasion to work with Silverberg, he'd be willing or prone to engage in unprofessional/dishonest/deceptive/underhanded behavior by faking a copyright attribution. If you've been following this interminable discussion from its beginning, you might remember that the Morris clique was arguing that such copyright attributions were the "gold standard" for resolving a dispute like this; but when the supposed "gold standard" is met, they resort to baseless personal attacks. That's been characteristic of that clique since the AFD which set off this vendetta, where the nominator was soon accused of "an ongoing, malicious bias to anything involving Janet Morris" because he expressed disapproval of one of her pet characters in a review published 25 freaking years ago. They think it's acceptable to disparage, without logic or evidence, anybody who crosses their path if it helps them promote their work. And "venal" is a pretty mild word for behavior like that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No one accused Brian Thomsen of any such behavior and you know it, or should. I knew Brian personally, worked with him professionally, and mourned his death. For you to accuse me of saying he acted unprofessionally, etc., is baseless and without merit. To suggest an editor might have had a bias in favor of a writer is not an attack on that editor's character. Rather, it acknowledges exactly what editors should do for their writers, and what Brian in fact did do for hs writers. He stood up for us when he could and honored and respected our work. You don't know me, I don't want you to know me (hence the username), and I wish you would stop misinterpreting my motives.74.124.97.52 (talk)Dokzap —Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

"If you've been following this interminable discussion from its beginning" -- I haven't; I just stepped in to try to resolve things. Which AfD, out of curiosity? DS (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyers in Hell, where several of the characters who have been teeing off on me of late were then singing my praises. Also please note that the IP who claims on your talk page to have not-for-public-view information about this dispute was recently blocked (for a week) as a sock of an editor with a COI. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, I get that you don't like these users, but you really do need to tone down the rhetoric a bit. As it stands, what I'm seeing in the above and at User talk:Hulcys930 is problematic in tone (to say the least). I get that this can be extremely frustrating (I'm not exactly happy to be dealing with it either), but civility is always the best way forward.

On an unrelated note, have you considered setting up archiving for this page? At 501 (current) sections and over 600 KB of (current) text, it's a bit clunky and takes a while to load. I find that User:MiszaBot III (instructions) does wonders for my talk page. Anyways, cheers. lifebaka++ 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo I do believe that we both want the same thing - the best WP article possible. I truly hope you are willing to tone down the rhetoric and bring this discussion back to a civil discourse.98.218.161.68 (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

After two months of steady comments like these from the Morris clique, you say I'm the one who "toned up" the rhetoric? Get real. A few statements from Hulcys930, which are almost entirely fabricated: The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. . . . OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz take turns making edits to the Morris pages so that it appears there is no one particular editor editing her pages. However, all that is needed is to go to ANY page for a Janet Morris novel or anthology and look at the history to see these three editors' names in an obvious "tag team" attack on each page. That charming "UrbanTerrorist" fellow regularly posted personal attacks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is acting irrationally, and should recuse himself or herself from editing these pages for WP:COI and claiming I would cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion before he got himself blocked for making various threats. Just today, the ever civil Mzmadmike told me "Learn to read, learn to be polite to your betters, and seek some therapy, fanboi." I'm grumpy over two months of garbage like this. Get over it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how "possibly biased" can be conflated with "This is utterly reprehensible garbage, a malicious smear of a well-respected man whose life was tragically cut short a few years ago and cannot defend his reputation. To suggest that Thomsen would somehow have decided to falsify copyright information in a book he edited, which would have [been] both unprofessional and dishonest, without a shred of evidence... etc." As you very well know, no one did anything of the sort. Please stop going off on tangents and trying to confuse the issue of the sources used to validate information. Also, I would personally appreciate it if you would stop using my talk page as a forum to insult my ethics and intentions. You do NOT know me, nor do you have a crystal ball telling you that I am an evil person who just wants to make you look bad (or who has some unknown personal grudge against you, Robert Silverberg, Brian Thomsen or anyone else).Hulcys930 (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's rich. You've spent two months calling me and various other editors dishonest, biased, incompetent, and all sorts of other things, without a shred of evidence. You've spent two months posting entirely false or grossly distorted statements insulting my "ethics and intentions." Nobody needs a crystal ball to figure out what your own words make clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Horse Manure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not telling the entire truth. Yes, I was banned. The ban wasn't because of threats per se, it was because I had talked about writing up my experiences with the Heroes in Hell pages, which have been unlike anything else I have ever been involved in on Wikipedia. I let Hullaballoo Wolfowitz get me upset, which was a mistake. That I will not do again. I do suggest you take a long look through his history on this. Every time Hullaballoo Wolfowitz looses a point he begins another round of personal attacks on those who take positions that he doesn't like. You are either for him 100%, or you get attacked. I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz needs to be banned until he learns better manners. 173.248.231.68 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. Your block log says, plain as day, "Threats (legal and otherwise)" were the reason for your block [101]. Your block notice says "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for making implied legal threats and threats to "publicize" the behavior of editors here, with the clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia processes." Are you saying the admin who blocked you wasn't "telling the whole truth"? There was a lengthy discussion at ANI over the incident, as well as on your talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't ridiculous. The Admin who instituted the block couldn't be expected to read a couple of hundred thousand words to understand exactly what was going on, and as you may have noticed, I am not blocked indefinitely. I am however asking for you to be blocked indefinitely. I've been a Wikipedia editor for longer than you have, and I have a powerful interest in making sure that this project runs well. In simple terms, I am a true believer in the Wikipedia mission. Based on your actions, you are not, and you are a huge embarrassment to the project. I've already given my reasons for wanting a ban to be instituted, there is no reason to repeat them. We have a huge problem here in that one editor has decided to place him or herself in conflict with every other editor who has worked on the articles in question. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. We need to find common ground. Feelings are being hurt, and egos are being bruised, and it's not good for anyone's blood pressure. Can we agree, at least, that we all want the best possible article on the subject?96.255.31.106 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Are you the same person as the one posting from IP 98.218.161.68? I certainly don't believe that Ms Hulcy does, give the long record of false statements and personal attacks she's made, directed at me and at other editors, has the slightest interest in accuracy. I don't believe that of UrbanTerrorist. And I don't believe that of Guarddog2, who scrounged up a mistake in a blog posted on the Locus website to supported a claim she knew was false (that none of the Silverberg stories involved were first published in IASFM). And, in the course of two months of sustained abuse directed at me by Morris associates, you, or the other IP, accused me of "trying to rewrite history and put both Morris and Silverberg in a bad light" -- but refused to explain in a substantive fashion how or in what way my statements were improper. Why don't you start by explaining why you believe that the statement that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" is factually inaccurate, in terms of standard bibliographic usage and Wikipedia practice? That's been the core of the dispute, after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We is you and I. I am the same person - had some IT issues at work, so my IP address must have changed. I believe the statement that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" is factually inaccurate, because, if you look at the copyright data again, you will notice that the Rebels in Hell creation date is 1985, while the IASFM serial creation date is 1986. Also, the first review of the complete work, Rebels in Hell, from which GITO was excerpted, was published four months before the IASFM excerpt was published. So the complete book existed well before the first serial, and was available in advance for review as was the norm back in mid-1980's.98.218.161.68 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

HW, you express how frustrated you are at being contradicted by a number of editors. Have you ever thought that maybe all these "really mean" people are also frustrated with you because you are, for whatever reason, insisting on posting inaccurate information on pages that discuss books and stories that mean a great deal to us? I have personally been reading the Heroes in Hell series since it first came out, along with the Thieves' World books and The Sacred Band stories and characters that evolved from TW.

I'm not sure why you are so intransigent about trying to make sure no one thinks Bob Silverberg and Greg Benford actually wrote their Heroes in Hell stories for the series itself, but that is what actually happened.

I've never made the claim you describe. It's a figment of somebody's overheated imagination. You've never cited it, just like none of you ever cited the COI you claimed I had. It has nothing to do with the actual publication history. Isaac Asimov's "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" was commissioned for an anthology called Final Stage, but it was first published in F&SF, and is consistently credited that way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 19:55, 11 August 2011 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (2,202 bytes) (rv, not previously discussed, and we do not merge Hugo-winning stories into low-rent series they're affiliated with; Undid revision 444313870 by UrbanTerrorist (talk)) (undo) (emphasis added) at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback&action=history[[102]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs)

That is obviously not the claim you said I made. It is evident you are making things up, just as you were when you claimed that Orangemike, Dravecky and I had engaged in a years-long jihad to somehow "attack" Morris and her writing. I may have a low opinion about the quality of the Heroes in Hell series, but I'm hardly alone. When it was first being published, a Hugo-nominated reviewer, writing in a Hugo-nominated zine, described it as "slipshod writing and unfulfilled possibilities. Heroes in Hell is a rehash of Farmer's Riverworld, but Morris and friends seem to insist on playing cutsey" and said the anthologies followed a pattern of "one good work by a name author . . . and a lot of Journeyman to Pedestrian quality words around it." Get over it. I've written a batch of articles fairly reporting on the history and critical reputation of books I've liked and loathed, and what has you so incensed is simply and accurately reporting the publication history of various stories in the same terms and under the same rules used in tens of thousands of other Wikipedia articles, as used by SFWA in crediting writers in its Nebula anthologies, as used by the publisher Gale in assembling its highly-regarded academic/reference bibliographies -- as used by pretty much everybody except your little circle. It's not an accident that you Morris dancers have no one to cite in support of yourselves except each other. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

HW: The above comment is the one YOU made when editing the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. It doesn't require any interpretation - the meaning is obvious. Since you are so devout a believer in sourcing information, would you mind posting the source of the "review" by the "Hugo-nominated reviewer" and the "Hugo-nominated zine" so that others may see what the source actually says and by whom it was said and when? Considering how you parsed the statements by Robert Silverberg when you wrote the imaginative description on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, this review could easily be about Felix the Cat. In 1986, the only "zines" were mimeographed on colored paper and passed out by hand, so I would be very interested in exactly when this review was written. I have offered to provide you scans of the rights pages of all 12 volumes of the original Heroes in Hell series so you can see for yourself that no attribution to any other publication was needed when the volumes were printed, but you appear not to be interested in anything that might refute your interpretation of how the publishing industry defines terms of art; or is it because you know you can't get away with accusing Baen of incompetence or malfeasance in attribution issues in 12 different books?Hulcys930 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Every author agreed to that clause when they signed their contracts to participate in Heroes in Hell -- including Silverberg and Benford -- that all stories submitted to Heroes in Hell would be original works never sold or published elsewhere, written in the shared universe/world of Heroes in Hell, based on the rules of that universe. That is a fairly common expectation/contract term for authors writing in any specific shared universe/world, so why are you so adamant that it did NOT apply to Silverberg and Benford regarding Heroes in Hell?

That's very lawyerlike of you, and that's not a compliment. Benford and Silverberg signed contracts guaranteeing that the stories they had written had never been published elsewhere at the time the stories were submitted. Because they retained first serial rights, they did not guarantee that their stories would not first be published in magazines in advance of the publication of the Morris anthologies. The "first" in "first serial" means "first", after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does - it means the first magazine to publish an excerpt from the upcoming book in this instance. When Baen paid the advance in the advance and royalty contract, he bought the rights to the original work and only Baen Books can claim to be the original publisher. First serial means an excerpt published prior to the release of the BOOK. The fact that the excerpt is a complete story is immaterial. That is what you are confusing. In this case the story was commissioned specifically as a chapter for the book REBELS IN HELL. You cannot divorce the intellectual property from the argument here. Those stories were written for the series using shared characters and milieu. Janet Morris even wrote a Gilgamesh story, "Gilgamesh Redux" in CRUSADERS IN HELL in 1987, before Silverberg wrote "The Fascination of the Abomination" in ANGELS IN HELL in 1987, and "Gilgamesh in Uruk" in 1988. All works in the series commingled and shared IP. And the version of the story that won the Hugo contained the series IP. If Asimov's had bought the right to claim to be the original publisher, as you are incorrectly attributing, then the story would have been a second serial reprint in Rebels in Hell, which it was NOT, and their would have to be an attribution on the copyright page. The Heroes in Hell contract was for ORIGINAL WORKS ONLY. There cannot be two original publishers. The SFWA definition provided by the lawyers applies.98.218.161.68 (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's become increasingly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Nobody buys "the right to claim to be the original publisher", as you so strangely would have it. I'd love to see the contractual language you say governs that point. But even if you found it, it wouldn't control the content of a Wikipedia article. There are lots of books out there "ghost written" for celebrities, and their contracts routinely prohibit the "ghost" from claiming authorship. But Wikipedia reports the actual authorship when it's reliably sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. And since Rebels in Hell wasn't a magazine, the story's publication there couldn't have been a second serial publication under any circumstances. And your comment about the "attribution on the copyright page" is dead wrong, and you know it; in collective works like anthologies, it's acceptable to attach copyright notices to the individual stories (usually on the title page or last page), and that's what Janet Morris did with the HiH anthologies. Invective may be satisfying, by fact-checking is better. Perhaps, since you're citing an SFWA paper for your side of the argument, you could explain why, when SFWA included Benford's "Newton Sleep" in a Nebula anthology. SFWA, on the copyright page, credited the magazine where it made its first appearance, without using those magic words "first serial", and gave no credit whatever to Janet Morris or the Heroes in Hell anthology where it was republished. Are you now saying SFWA's copyright credit is somehow defamatory, the way you say my description is? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely amazing that of all the editors involved in this dispute YOU are the only one who has any real understanding of the publishing industry and its standards and practices. Did I miss your bibliography? Every time anyone tries to correct your misunderstanding of a publishing term, you immediately and insultingly discount everything they have said and then fall back to your position that reality does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. So, in other words, creating a particular reality in the pages of Wikipedia that applies nowhere else is all that is important to you - regardless of the actual events, contracts controlling a situation, or any other reality involved in the subject matter. You focus on minutia you can attack as not being accurate while baldly stating that accuracy is not important to Wikipedia. Your insistence on manipulating information for your own purposes is one of the reasons why most college students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia as a source for anything they turn in to their professors. That is really a shame because the original concept of Wikipedia is terrific and, unfortunately, very idealistic - they just didn't take into account petty dictators who believe if they argue loud enough and long enough, everyone who disagrees with them eventually will just give up (usually because they have lives) so the dictator wins based on "the last person standing" criteria and the truth is the only real victim.Hulcys930 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference between you and all the "Morris-clique" editors you decry is that you are trying to post incorrect information about the Heroes in Hell series, while others are trying to change the pages back to reflect what actually happened, even though you view the situation from the exact opposite position, when you, in fact, do not really know what happened and seem to be making the mistake of many prosecutors: decide what you believe first and then look for evidence to back up that theory, rather than trying to find out what really happened. I am literally at a loss as to how to resolve this dispute when no matter what anyone tells you and no matter how many ways the situation is explained, you completely discount anything I or any other editors say who disagree with you, and refuse to even consider any information presented that does not back up how you view the situation. I know you realize that you can find any information you wish to somewhere on the web; but just because you can find something three places does not mean it is correct.

That's an irrefutable argument, and an utterly irrelevant one. There are multiple reliable sources supporting the chronology, showing that the stories involved were first published in magazines before appearing in the Morris anthologies. There are no reliable sources saying otherwise. Even Janet Morris acknowledged the accuracy of the chronology, however much she may now wish to deny it. This high-school-class solipsism, half-baked infinite regress, claiming in effect that no sources can be definitively reliable, is just a weak-kneed excuse for denying the empirical world.

That's the way this dispute has gone from the beginning. You and the whole sorry crew of Morris dancers originally insisted that the magazine publication happened after the books appeared. After that was refuted, you (collectively) argued that the set of sources I originally provided wasn't reliable enough. When I provided sources that met the "gold standard" your cadre asked for, suddenly trhe objection was completely changed; now the factual chronology is irrelevant, standard bibliographic practice is irrelevant, the otherwise uncontroversial practice of Wikipedians expressed in tens of thousands of articles is irrelevant -- only your opinion of how a set of private contracts can be written about governs, rather than the standard terms of discussion in the real world. Wikipedia isn't party to those contracts, and neither Wikipedia nor anyone else is governed by what's bouncing around inside your heads. Wikipedia writes about what's verifiable in the real world, using the language of the real world. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That argument might hold water if not for the fact that every editor except you agreed to the wording of a completely neutral chronology after an extended Dispute Resolution: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." Insisting on clinging to terminology which is incorrect (but generally understood) in favor of terminology from a specific industry (which can be easily defined for all users) is no reason to insist on trying to use that incorrect terminology to bolster an inaccurate concept. Is Wikipedia supposed to inform the reader or insult their intelligence by saying they won't be able to comprehend "terms of art" when defined? Hulcys930 (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, not true, and you know it's not true. Three editors supported Jethrobot's formulation, but not Dokzap's. Guarddog2/Morris "endorsed" both (which pretty well puts the lie to your insistence that it's "incorrect information."). Three or four editors, all but one with COIs, supported only Dokzap's. That hardly matches up to what you said -- especially since your cadre reopened the argument after agreement had been reached and other editors had left the discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I, personally, deeply apologize for any unkind language or accusations I have made against you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and promise never to engage in such language in the future. (Really, I don't practice witchcraft.) It would be good if you could look at information, furnished by the editors whom you feel have been persecuting you, with a fresh eye, without hearing a sneering or condescending tone in what is being said, even though I know you really feel justified in completely dismissing everything said by people whom you consider to be "single purpose editors" -- although I don't really understand why you assume those editors would automatically have nefarious intentions since they are obviously only interested in something about which they feel deeply... I will also see if it is possible to furnish you with some information you would consider truthful. Would a scan of the rights (permissions) page of every Heroes in Hell book help? Maybe there would be a way I could post the jpegs of each page somewhere you could access them. I'd probably have to get permission from an administrator or something, but it still might be possible. Please let me know. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The above comment was made one week ago and received no response; there also was no change in the "tone" of the editing commentary. I removed the apology since it had obviously done no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC) In looking so hard for "evidence" of "promotional editing" and parsing every single statement made trying to find inconsistencies on which to pounce, you are missing the point entirely: the WP pages need to reflect reality accurately. That is all anyone wants, no matter how hard you try to convince other editors and administrators that every change made to any of the related pages is an attempt to use WP for promotional purposes. It would be really nice if you could just move on and become obsessed with something else. The pages now all reflect a neutral, chronological publishing history, regardless of who suggested it or who agreed or disagreed with the wording. Please leave it the way Lifebaka suggested it be worded.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Luci Thai

Hello, I wrote the post on Luci Thai and learned that it has been deleted. She is an award nominated pornographic actress, which to me would mean she is notable. AVN is the industry standard for achievement and performance awards and she was nominated for the Best New Starlet award. I don't understand how this doesn't classify her as notable person. Any assistance you can provide, along with what I should have added in addition to my sources in order to keep her page posted on the site would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Per WP:PORNBIO, a single award nomination is insufficient to establish notability. Moreover, a similar version of the article had been deleted by community consensus, and you should review the arguments there. The just-deleted article had no reliably sourced biographical content, raising serious problems under WP:BLP. Frankly, there's very little chance anything you could legitimately add to the article that would establish notability, but your best chance would be to find sourcing outside the standard industry PR machinery. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Outside viewpoint

After a lengthy conversation with the IP editor (who showed me publishing contracts from the 1980s, which are not for public consumption), I can say that there are three ways to read the situation:

• one which puts blame on the late Brian Thomsen,
• one which puts blame on Robert Silverberg,
• and one which puts no blame on anyone.

However, that third instance involves terms of art which I believe you may not be interpreting correctly. This is the problem with terms of art: they can sometimes have meanings which are completely counter-intuitive. Can we agree that the third instance is the preferred one? DS (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't. An unidentified person has sent you unverified documents which can assign undescribed "blame" for an undescribed "situation" which has an undescribed relationship to the article involved. What can any of that have to do with the simple chronological, factual question of the publishing history of the story in question. I haven't interpreted any "terms of art" here. What you're saying here doesn't make a bit of sense. I don't see how reporting publication dates accurately involves placing "blame" on anyone. Reliable, public record sources, provide all the essential information. "I have these documents that nobody can look at that prove published reliable sources wrong" is hardly consistent with Wikipedia policy, especially since BLP is involved. And how can Brian Thomsen possibly be involved in the issue of the publication date of "Gilgamesh in the Outback," since he wasn't working for or with any of the parties involved with regard to the story's original publication. If Morris and Silverberg had some sort of the dispute about the novel that Thomsen published at Questar, that might be relevant content for an article about that book, but it's got nothing to do with the content issues here. Finally, I can't see how these contracts have anything to do with the issue the IP raised to begin with, which was the explained (and, frankly, baseless) claim that I somehow deceptively edited a quotation from Silverberg. Until he/she explains that, nobody should be paying attention to the claim. The Morris fans have an easily recognized history of making claims in this dispute against me, against Dravecky, against OrangeMike, which they repeat but never back up. And so far as I can see, this is just another one of them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballo Wolfowitz has researched the publication chronology of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" to show that the July 1986 Asimov's publication has an earlier June sell date, as opposed to the July 1986 publication of the Rebels in Hell publication. This is good research for which he should be commended. HW cites, for example, an acknowledgments page in Brian Thomsen's edited book as an example of its "first publication" in Asimov's (the edition Thomsen cites).

In HW's edits of WP: Gilgamesh in the Outback, however, he uses the word "originally" in place of "first published." This may be a term of art that DS refers to -- the distinctions publishing uses to describe author and publisher rights.

For example, in the publishing industry, such terms of art include phrases like "first serial," an accurate description of the Asimov's publication. Silverberg has written that he was invited to write for the Heroes in Hell series, and that Gilgamesh in the Outback was his story for it. I would guess that the contracts DS refers to mention granting Silverberg first serial rights, that is, the first right to sell the story in a magazine. DS, is this such a term of art you saw in those contracts?

I agree with the "no blame" solution, especially since it avoids controversy. To "blame" Silverberg and say he wrongly described how he created his story is absurd -- he should know. To "blame" Thomsen for not fully citing in the acknowledgments page might be credible, but because Thomsen included in his edited collection commentary from Silverberg showing the story's history, Thomsen corrects the slight error of not noting the Rebels in Hell/Heroes in Hell publication. As the I Ching says, "No blame. It furthers one to cross the great water."74.124.97.52 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2011, Dokzap (talk)Dokzap

"Originally published" is not a "term of art." It is a common, plain language term whose meaning is clear. The phrase "originally published" is used, in its natural sense, in more than 10,000 Wikipedia articles [103]. It is such standard Wikipedia terminology that it's used in the title of more than 300 categories (see Category:Works_originally_published_in_magazines_by_country, Category:Works_originally_published_in_American_magazines, Category:Works_originally_published_in_magazines_by_interest) Moreover, the "originally published" phrasing had been used in the GITO longs before I first edited it; the story was placed in the category "Literature originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" in January 2011 (the category title was changed from "literature" to "works" a few weeks later). Nobody has advanced anything resembling authority or sourcing even suggesting this very common, very standard usage is in any way inappropriate.

As for the argument that the copyright acknowledgments in the Thomsen anthology were incorrect/incomplete, that's simply not valid. Note, for example, that exactly the same form of acknowledgment was used when Benford's HiH story "Newton Sleep" was included in the annual Nebula anthology [104] -- chronologically first magazine publication cited, no reference to the HiH publication. This is the norm, and the legal requirement. There's no "blame" to be placed on Thomsen, Silverberg, or anyone else, because nothing was done inappropriately. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I also believe the "term of art" you are misunderstanding is "first serial" which refers to the person who has purchased the rights to a story allowing the author to sell "first serial" rights to a magazine to print the same story. This is often done when the story has been nominated for a prestigious award, like a Hugo, because it gives the author wider exposure to the people who will be voting. This does not mean the story was written expressly for the magazine buying the "first serial" rights; nor does it mean the magazine becomes the owner of the rights; it simply means the owner of the IP has allowed the author to make an agreement with a magazine to ALSO print the same story. I know you don't like this "term of art," deny it's existence in publishing, and would rather it was not a reality; however, the above was the situation 25 years ago and DS (talk) has apparently seen the original contracts controlling that particular situation with Mr. Silverberg (and possibly the contract with Mr. Benford also). I know you insist that anything backing up the claim that GITO was written for Heroes in Hell is fraudulent or falsified or altered (although until you started insisting this was untrue, no one had even looked at those contracts in a couple of decades and never needed to alter or fabricate them) and will not be convinced, even though I do not know WHY you are so insistent that Mr. Silverberg could not possibly have written GITO for Heroes in Hell, Mr. Silverberg and the contracts say otherwise. Hulcys930 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ms Hulcy, you fundamentally misunderstand what "first serial" means. It does not mean "the owner of the IP has allowed the author to make an agreement with a magazine to ALSO print the same story." It is a right controlled by the author. When you wrote a story under a work-for-hire agreement with Janet Morris, you in effect transferred that right to Morris. Silverberg did not write GITO under a work-for-hire contract, so Morris only controls the rights which Silverberg agreed to sell her -- which did not include the "first serial" rights at issue here. Virtually every sale of a piece of fiction to a magazine involves the sale of first serial rights; it's not something ordinarily remarked on because it's inherent when the magazine is the first publisher of a work. Work-for-hire contracts, by the way, are very much not the norm for prose fiction (media tie-ins aside); note that Morris herself controls her Tempus character from Thieves' World, just as Marion Zimmer Bradley published Lythande outside that franchise. As for tes rest of your comments, I have never said anything of the sort, and you know it. Your persistent invention of baseless accusations to harass and harangue editors you disagree with is uncivil and disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Oh my! You might want to take that crystal ball back to where you bought it, because it keeps giving you bad information. Neither I, nor any of the other writers in Lawyers in Hell, signed a "work-for-hire" contract with Ms. Morris. I spent several decades working on contracts (Publishing, IP, Mergers and Acquisitions, Collective Bargaining, etc.) with lawyers, so I am very aware of the provisions of any contract I sign on my own behalf. (Yes, I DO know what a work-for-hire contract is and I would not sign one regarding an intellectual property.)

So, where you charge me with making "baseless accusations", are you now saying you are NOT attempting to prove Mr. Silverberg wrote GITO independently of the Heroes in Hell series, then sold it to Ms. Morris later, and that it just happened to be printed in Asimov's shortly before the anthology was released? I thought that was one of your main contentions regarding these articles. I could have sworn you said:

"Finally, for reasons that I cannot fathom, editors here are denying the plain facts that some of the best-known and best-received stories in the series were initially published in other outlets and reprinted in the anthologies themselves. One editor has explicitly changed the publishing history to state the series' most famous story, "Gilgamesh in the Outback," was "subsequently" reprinted by the science fiction magazine where it was actually first published. This is an outright lie, part of the mindless promotional editing that afflicts this article.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)"

"I'm particularly struck by the fact that the partisan editors here, while trying to meticulously document all sorts of trivial references to the series, are also working industriously to expunge any references to the fact that its best-known component work is part of Robert Silverberg's independently created "Gilgamesh" sequence, which began with a novel which has nothing to do with "Heroes in Hell" and continues with a novel which, although its parts were also reprinted in various series anthologies, was published outside the series without any conspicuous reference to it.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)"

I'm pretty sure that in the above statements, you insist Mr. Silverberg did not write GITO for Heroes in Hell because he had used Gilgamesh as a character in a prior novel (I guess the other two stories don't matter because they did not win Hugos) and that the appearance of his stories in the Heroes in Hell series constitute "reprints" which to most readers means "this story was written for publication elsewhere and later the author was paid by [this publication] to "reprint" their story and it was not changed substantially to fit in with the rest of the [publication]." However, Mr. Silverberg himself said the following:

"During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. [...] It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." Brian Thomsen (ed.), Novel Ideas -- Fantasy, DAW Books, 2006, pp.205-06 (story introduction by Robert Silverberg)[Emphasis added.]

Now, HW, to me this sounds like Mr. Silverberg is saying

• He wrote the stories for the Heroes in Hell series (back when people could not communicate in real time and send massive quantities of information to each other instantaneously, making it much harder to share ideas and collaborate on stories);
• He was appropriately proud of the fact his first novella for Heroes in Hell won a Hugo for a "shared-world story" which was unusual, and
• He had fun writing the three stories for the series.

This is from the same source you used to "prove" the exact opposite of what Mr. Silverberg says. So, no, I'm not engaging in the "persistent invention of baseless accusations" in this matter. I will be very interested to see how you attempt to overturn the information in your favorite source that contradicts completely your theory of how GITO came about and its relation to the Heroes in Hell series.Hulcys930 (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I put this on the Heroes in Hell (book) page and post it here in the hopes that this will add to the distinction between "originally published" and "first serial." My comments follow: By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mr. Ollie have done on the Heroes in Hell series article, the Heroes in Hell anthology article, and Robert Silverberg's "Giglamesh in the Outback" articles, HW and Mr Ollie repeat the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and b) confuses a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." , p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form, or when a magazine is the acquiring publisher. However, to use it to refer to a first serial of part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a first-serial publication, in my opinion using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book. It can be inferred that a publication that appears first in partial form and later in a book by the acquiring publisher is a first-serial right. As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance. The colloquial use of "original publication" may not always be precise or accurate. Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz and Mr Ollie in the latest revision of the Heroes in Hell anthology, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and as a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which I mine opinion is not verifiable at all.Dokzap (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Nomination for Speedy deletion of Houtan Delfi‎

I'm curious to know as why a credible claim to importance is relevant in this case given that my nomination was based on criterion G4. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, too; I've got no recollection of this one. My best guess is that I had a batch of tabs open and accidentally pulled a speedy tag from the wrong article. Sorry about that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Jared Leto

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Jared Leto". Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Contractual terminology

It has been suggested that this document may provide illumination on certain parts of the dispute. DS (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does, which is why I introduced it into the discussion in the relevant DRN discussion [105], where as I recall my reading of the document was generally regarded as accurate. I assume you're referring to one of Dokzap's comments about "subsidiary rights," where Dokzap is misunderstanding the context of the quoted discussion and reaches an inaccurate conclusion. The SFWA-sponsored presentation deals primarily with the sale and publication of novels and similar book-length works; note that the very fist paragraph of its introduction refers to "various types of books" and that the text includes phrases like "contracts for book-length manuscripts" (p6), "an author is likely to be concerned with certain aspects of the publication of his/her book" (p9), and "most trade book publishing agreements" (p12). The subsidiary rights section he cites describes the most common types of subsidiary rights which may be, but not always are, transferred when books are sold to book publishers. Note also that among the "subsidiary" rights identified are "Publication of the entire work in hardcover (including leatherbound or deluxe) editions or paperback editions." This does not mean that all book-length publications are based on "subsidiary" rights. Instead, it indicates that when a book is sold to a hardcover publisher, that publisher, under a typical contract, also acquires the right to control its paperback publication. Which rights are "subsidiary" (as opposed to "primary" or whatever) depends on the nature of the sale. For most short fiction, the "first serial" sale is the primary sale, not the exercise of a subsidiary right; indeed, in most cases, the sale which results in the first publication is the "primary" sale. We could keep dissecting this language and greater and even more tedious length, but I think it's very important to recognize that Guarddog2/Janet Morris endorsed the use of the phrase "originally published" as used in the GITO article as it stands as I write [106]. I am therefore beyond baffled that several of her associates deny its accuracy. I can produce a huge list of published texts where the phrasing is used in the same way I used it (and 10,000 or so other Wikipedia articles use it), e.g. [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My point in citing the SFWA document was to establish a neutral, authoritative source for understanding publishing contract terms. As I have said elsewhere, while "originally published" in many circumstances can be adequate for general WP usage, when discussing the relationship between a magazine publication of a work and a book publication of a work, "originally published" is imprecise. If a work was written for book publication, either as a novel or as a short story in an original anthology (that is, an anthology of works originally created for that anthology), then magazine sales of excerpts from that work are treated as serial rights. If I understand what Hullaballo Wolfowitz has written above, he/she confuses a contract for a work originally created for a magazine with a contract for a work originally created for a book. These are different entities.

For book contracts, and as explained in the SFWA publication, serial rights often are considered as subsidiary rights. In a book contract a publisher typically purchases a main body of rights (mass market paperback, trade paperback, and hardcover, for example) and then lists other rights the publisher may wish to exercise in the future, collectively grouped as "subsidiary rights." These can include first-serial and second-serial rights, reprint rights, foreign rights, drama rights, etc. (The wise writer and agent will delete a subsidiary rights clause, by the way, or negotiate firmer terms.) For novels, first serial rights often are seen as a way to promote a book. First serial rights usually appear before a book comes out, or about the same time, and the author earns money from that right. I have known editors (Brian Thomsen, for example) who jiggered first serial sales to benefit a writer. Sometimes, a first serial sale is done before the official release date of a book, but the work comes out after the book. I had a first serial sale that appeared in an August cover date F&SF for a novel with a June publication date.

An original anthology book actually has two sets of contracts. First, the editor has a contract with the publisher to edit and deliver a collection of stories. The editor then contracts with the authors for the right to put those stories in that collection. A generous editor might only buy the right to publish in the book and reserve all other rights to the authors, including first serial rights. Often authors get a share of royalties earned. If a writer sells first-serial rights, there is then a contract with a magazine to purchase those rights. If the author then makes a novel out of the story, there will be another book contract.

All of which is why without knowing the complexities of the contracts regulating how a short story can be published, and by whom, blanket statements such as "originally published" can lead one into error. The phrase in many uses should be cited. However, in terms of WP and an article discussing a work's bibliography, a simple statement of facts using traditional publication information will suffice and avoid errors that arise when using what might appear to be commonplace terms.Dokzap (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap.

That's a lovely, vague, theoretical discussion entirely unsupported by any authority or documentation of usage. As I pointed out, and you certainly can't deny in good faith, the phrase "originally published", and forms like "original publication" are quite commonly used to indicated first chronological publication, particularly in bibliographies and similar reference works. For example, Ashley and Contento's The Supernatural Index, a standard reference bibliography for anthologies of supernatural/fantasy fiction, uses the term "original" to indicate first chronological publication and lists Asimov's SF as the original publication of "Gilgamesh in the Outback". (Contento is the best-regarded, award-winning bibliographer in the field, and his reference works are held by hundreds and hundreds of reference libraries.) Perhaps you might care to provide some sort of authority indicating why this standard, traditional bibliographic usage bibliographic usage could somehow "lead one into error" when used in an encyclopedia. Did anyone ever say such a thing before these discussions on Wikipedia? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Janet Morris did not endorse the use of the "originally published" language - she endorsed I, Jethrobot's proposed non-controversial consensus wording where it was merely stated that GITO was published in both venues, without any attribution to originality;

The hell she didn't. You are just, plainly, not telling the truth. This [117] is the edit Jethrobot made, which she endorsed. Plain as day, it left the phrasing "originally published" in the article while changing "reprinted" to "then printed." Guarddog2/Morris, in part quoting Jethrobot, quite expressly endorsed the article's "reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright"[118]. You're now arguing that accurate information "reflecting the chronological publication order" shouldn't be in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The following is from Janet Morris refuting you calling me a liar:

I've collapsed a wall of text, crossposted from Guarddog2/Janet Morris's talk page, where anyone who wants to can read it. All that it actually says about the text I cited amounts to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse WP presenting only the actual facts about the Heroes in Hell(TM) series, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's consistent misunderstanding and misstatements of the facts I was hoping never to return to this debate, however, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is now claiming I endorse positions and editions based on his positions, which are incorrect. I do not accept any statement that any story for the HIH series was "originally published" anywhere else because this is untrue and contrary to the contract between me and every writer in the series. Here are the facts about Heroes in Hell(TM), its various volumes and stories printed elsewhere which must be correctly stated. I am aware that WP has a BLP ongoing. I prefer not to participate in any more endless debates, but to say here for the record that my rights and the rights of approximately 34 writers are being misstated by HW and potentially damaged when "originally published" is used to indicate that a story from Heroes in Hell had a first serial or promotional inclusion elsewhere. Heroes in Hell is a shared universe series, which means certain intellectual property belongs to the series and to me as its proprietary/editor, such as milieu and characters created for the series. The contract under which the books were written for me and my contract with Baen Books for the 20th century volumes of HIH stipulates that all stories commissioned by me and guided by me and created for my series by ALL authors are to be original and written to take place in and include the Heroes in Hell series milieu and concept, which is my intellectual property, created by me and subsequently contributed to by the various writers in full understanding of their contract terms and conditions. For this reason, the Baen Books volumes cite no permissions and no earlier publications on the copyrights pages and each clearly states that each book is a "Baen Books Original." This is legal and correct in terms that Simon & Schuster accepts and the US Copyright Law accepts because THE STORIES ARE CREATED FOR AND ORIGINAL TO the HIH series. The placement of first serials or free promotional placement (as in the case of the story Baslieus, which I co-wrote) in magazines or other books in no way clouds or diminishes the fact that each story was commissioned by me and created under my direction as an original story for my shared universe series, or that every author signed the same contract, each author warranting that the story I commissioned and which each author delivered would be an original story. Nor does such promotional publication diminish the requirement that the Heroes in Hell characters and milieu created by me and others belongs to the series as a whole. The Library of Congress "original" copyright date for each volume (listed under the volume and my name and thereafter including the names of the other writers) is as much as a year before the publication date. For Rebels in Hell this copyright office date is 1985. Any attempt to prove primacy based on dates of availability is immaterial and doomed to fail because of the lag time between original copyright date and publication. By US contract law and publishing law, all stories written for HIH series were required to be original to the series and one look at the volumes' rights pages proves this by the lack of permissions citations required thereon. Any "editor" should know this, whether a Wikipedia editor or any other kind of editor. If you apply the standards HW is attempting to apply to establishing GITO's "original" publication (a nonstandard term and an immaterial term in any case), every other book and story in WP should be immediately subject to the same extensive scrutiny and potential revision of their WP pages. Since in the mid-1980s it was common for portions of as-yet unpublished books to be included in other books or magazines with earlier publication dates (even including other books by other authors) in order to promote upcoming book releases, and this was often done by verbal agreement, thousands of titles would have to be re-investigated if WP wants to prove "original" publication status for each and every case. On the WP page about Gilgamesh in the Outback (GITO), which exists because the story is Nebula Award nominated and Hugo Award winning, focus should be maintained on the version that won the award, which was the version created under my direction for Rebels in Hell and submitted to me as original and purchased by me as original, and also first-serialized in IASFM. If any Silverberg quotations are added, they should be those that explain that in order to compile his 3 HIH stories into a volume to be sold by him outside the series, he was obligated to remove the proprietary HIH material to avoid copyright violation issues. Since by doing so, the GITO story in Silverberg's resulting novel was no longer the award-winning version, discussing this novelized version of GITO on a page dedicated to the award-winning version at all is discursive. I suggest, since all problems have solutions, that a simpler and less controversial wording be adopted, or correct publishing terminology be used. Perhaps it could be said that story X was published in magazine X AND book x, and avoid the issue of applying non-standard publishing language altogether. The sequentiality issue is the problematic one. Or use correct publishing terminology, such as "Published in X book on A date and first-serialized in Y magazine on B date. In closing: I endorse none of HW's edits or statements or selective quotations on the topic of Heroes in Hell series and its stories, which statements and edits are at best confused and at worst misleading. Guarddog2 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)98.218.161.68 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

and 2) I am sure you can find 10,000 examples of where a story was created and sold first to a venue such as Asimov's, and was there "published originally". But I am equally sure you could probably find 2,000 examples for every 10,000, where that is not the case, i.e. where the story was created for another publisher to be included in a book or anthology and sold as a subsidiary right, to be published in a venue like Asimov's under the first serial definition provided in the SFWA documment. For example, if Tom Clancy sells his new book, "The Sum of All Nightmares" to Putnam, and then the New York Times publishes a first serial full chapter excerpt two weeks prior to book release, by your definition, the New York Times is the "original publisher", since the excerpt came chronologically first. Only the contracts between author and publisher can provide verifiability beyond a shadow of a doubt in these cases, where the bibliographic evidence is incomplete.

Well, first of all, the bibliographic evidence is in no way incomplete. Not even Guarddog2/Morris denied the accuracy of chronology in the article, as confirmed by US Copyright Office records. Second, for all the caterwauling coming from this company of Morris dancers, none of you has provided any authority, citation, reference, or whatever, aside from your vaguely stated opinion that the commonly used phrase "originally published in" signifies anything beyond chronological sequence. or that, even if it might, there's anything in the slightest bit inappropriate in using it in its standard language and its bibliographical sense, in an encyclopedia article. As I pointed out, it's used in that sense in 10,000 other Wikipedia articles without objection, even in cases where it violates the "rule" you claim exists (eg, By Bizarre Hands). And, by the way, the contracts cannot provide evidence "beyond a shadow of a doubt" about future events, like the ultimate publication sequence. For example, in 1969 Galaxy held first serial rights to Herbert's Dune Messiah. But, through mismanagement and bad planning, they spread the serialization out over too many installments, then suffered publication delays so long that the book version appeared well before the serialization was complete. Contracts tell us what rights parties have, not whether they exercised them in the expected sequence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case, we have provided DS with the exact contract language that ALL the original 19 Heroes in Hell franchise authors signed. GITO was commissioned to be written within a specific milieu i.e. the Heroes in Hell shared universe per the franchise agreement for the book "Rebels in Hell", and not as a standalone work. Only BAEN Books has the right to claim that it is the original publisher. They bought the primary rights under an advance and royalty contract. First serial rights are addressed in that contract (per the provided definition - publication "prior to" book release). GITO in this instance is an excerpt from the book. It is a chapter of the anthology to be taken as a part of the whole. Were this not the case, then how do you explain this statement in the Heroes in Hell contract which every author signed: "The author represents that the story is original and has never been published in any form." If that is not the case, as you are claiming, then you are in fact accusing Silverberg, Benford, and all the other authors who exercised their first serial rights as delineated in the Heroes in Hell contract of fraud, since by your definition they created the works "originally" for Asimov's or any other magazine used to advertise the upcoming book and lied when they signed their Heroes in Hell contracts. Look at the creation dates in the copyright information. Rebels in Hell was created in 1985. The Asimov's Magazine issue with the book excerpt was created in 1986. So the book pre-exists the magazine article. Chronological availability of a product to purchase is meaningless in this instance. You can see why so many respected authors are upset with your insistence on using general language bibliographic definitions instead of defining specific terms of art used in the publishing industry for the WP readership. I am sure you were just trying to write the best possible article with the information you had available to you, but please correct these oversights now that you have verification of the actual contract terms. I know you have stated in the past that the WP readership would not understand these terms of art, and that is why you are so adamant against using them, but I'm sure a well written article commissioned to explain them simply, could enlighten and educate all of us. WP is an encyclopedia after all.96.255.31.106 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Am I the only one thinking that these two accounts at the Noel Ashman bio are the same person? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks very likely to me. I tried to clean up/update the article not too long ago, but that was fruitless. Gossip columns are more recently reporting that he's running a Manhattan strip club [119], and that his birthday last year was celebrated at a bowling alley [120], but somehow that sort of detail never gets added (not that it should be, giving the sourcing quality). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to get ticked finally and go through the tedious SPI process at some point. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Noel Ashman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noel Ashman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I've provided this courtesy notification as one of the significant contributors to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

George Craig (musician)

You removed all of the references from this article and then tagged it as unreferenced. I've added some references back to the article. In the future, please don't delete references from reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The references I removed, several weeks ago, either didn't support the claims they were cited for, or supported ancient gossip that didn't belong in the article. After three weeks, when nobody had improved the article, I added the sourcing tag. Two of those three sources are quite lousy and the third, a very brief interview, includes no content establishing notability. The article should probably be redirected to the relevant band article, since those references establish little more than his band membership. When quality references are removed from an article as ancillary to appropriately removed text, editors aren't expected to go a scavenger hunt to fund other claims the might be cited for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Hu charities

Can you let me know your thinking for deleting the references to the charities Kelly Hu has worked for? The links to the actual charities and other references are included. In the comment you said they were promotional - did you object to promoting the charities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgrudd (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to report an Administrator suspect Wiki Stalking

Hi I am still new to Wiki and have been activley participating in doing Wiki updates and adding new articles, I would like some guidance on an article that I wrote that had a significant amount of references as well the individual was a part of something Significant in Military History. It was deleted repeatedly and I saw the notes I changed it made edits then the same administrator submitted it for deletion again and said the person is not notable..please help with this? this is in regard to an article marked Kimberly J. Bowles that was deleted today. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpreneurgoddess (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When you create an article and it's deleted, then recreate the article under a different title, that's going to attract attention -- and keeping an eye out for behavior like that isn't wikistalking. Given that the same inappropriate content is up for deletion at wikinews, credited to a different user, it's hard to say that a bit of extra scrutiny shouldn't be in order. Bluntly, the text I see in the Google cache for both the Bowles and Jessy version of the article shouldn't survive a speedy deletion challenge (even if one of the five speedies so far cited the wrong reason). Even more bluntly, while it would be possible to strip the article of all the promotional language and other inappropriate content, down to a form that could survive a speedy, I wouldn't bother; the likelihood of surviving the standard deletion process, with his stricter requirements for articles, is pretty much nil. Bowles wasn't involved in the actual Tailhook scandal, and her own harassment claim would fail the NOTNEWS test. In addition, an adequate article would be required by our NPOV policy to include the reliably sourced related negative information that's been reported, and that wouldn't be doing the subject any favors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I took a look at the most recently deleted version of Kimberley J. Bowles (admins can look at deleted pages), and it very much falls under WP:BLP1E. She is "famous" basically as being the victim of a crime (well, not a crime, per se, but a scandal). We very intentionally do not have articles on such people, because doing so would basically perpetuate the crimes committed against them. Unless Bowles was notable for something beyond the Tailhook scandal, or her own role in it was so large that it was repeatedly reported in many different venues in a lot of detail, then there shouldn't be an article on her. I'm not entirely certain it should have been speedily deleted, as those requirements are far more strict, but I guarantee that the article would eventually be deleted by another deletion process even if it had been allowed to last for a week or more. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Emma Roberts

Re your edit here. The statement is a verified fact, the usage of 'gossip' at the BLP policy page states:

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

The information is verifiable/true/reliable (confirmed by other party) and in my opinion a star's social and personal life is indeed relevant to the depth of their media coverage. When I randomly thought of and looked at some other actors' articles - (Hugh Jackman, Kristen Stewart, Emma Watson, Scarlett Johansson, Julia Roberts) - they all have extensive personal life sections which usually detail their romances and/or marriages. One man's gossip is another man's news...perhaps interested editors could weigh in on Talk:Emma Roberts with their thoughts? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Hulla's removal of material from personal section. See note on Robert's discussion page. --BweeB (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Up With The Kardashians

Hi there, I would like to request your opinion if the tags on the article are appropriate within the guidelines of an article appearing here. I have a lot of changes I have been working on with Microsoft Word, but this page feels like a internet fan page and not an encyclopedic article. Also I am requesting a response on my page as your talk page is full of 500 plus entries which freezes my internet browser. Thank you for understanding. And please consider archiving your talk page if it has not already been discussed help from other parties on Wikipedia is out there, just ask and they will help you archive your page for you. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Ditko image

Hi, I would like to know what "violation" you are talking about when deleting the picture I uploaded. ‎In fact, the self-portrait drawn by Ditko is a non-free image, and I have uploaded other non-free images (under a fair rationale use) to other artists infoboxes and never had a problem with any editor or administrators. I think we should resolve our dispute here, because I'm sure that the photo uploaded does not infringe any terms of use in Wikipedia, but if you think I'm wrong, feel free to let me know your reasons. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NFC#UUI: [Examples of unacceptable uses] "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. . . . However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." "Famously reclusive" was rejected by consensus as an exception to this standard on several occasions, most recently last year in discussions regarding Japanese pornographic actresses. There also appear to be one or more free equivalent(s) available (high school yearbook photos), although the copyright status has not yet, to my knowledge, been definitely established.

As for the existing infobox image, it survived a deletion discussion recently; the consensus there rested in part on the determination that it represented the artist's drawing style, which clearly would not apply to a photograph.

There's a very strong presumption against the use of nonfree images in BLP infoboxes (which are typically used solely as identifying images); I'd be extremely surprised by a counterexample (for a photograph) which has been supported by consensus. Not even the iconic image of Twiggy has done so. This and similar Ditko photos have been available online in various places for several years, at least since 2006; there are good policy reasons keeping them out of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Kardashian mold"

Curious, what did you mean by "Kardashian mold" at the AFD for the community college professor? None of the names at Kardashian seem to me to make sense, and I strongly suspect that you're not referring to Kardash. Please either reply at my talk or leave a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Shilpa Shetty, you may be blocked from editing. Remember, if you disagree about the inclusion of sourced content for any other reason, use the talk page and discuss its redundancy. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Go away. It's editing misbehavior to post notices like this on the page of any editor who removes BLP violations or otherwise enforces sourcing policy who cleans up pages laced with tabloid claptrap. You know better than this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well Times of India generally is regarded as one of the more reputable Indian sources. I agree that the mafia coverage was excessive but I think it is worthy of mentioning briefly. For me atleast if an issue has been widely covered in reliable sources then that makes it worthy of inclusion, otherwise its seems like censorship. Personally I think the BLP issue at times can be overexaggerated because if claims are supported with multiple sources then we can't really be to blame for it. You have a point though about excess tabloid fodder, but in this case I wouldn't exactly call it that. I mean I see a lot of real crap in articles about some celebrities dog and some people think its notable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're really beginning to piss me off with your ridiculous BLP "gossip" "tabloid" claims. Personal life and dating somebody for 4 years for instance is perfectly relevant. Especially when they are referenced to reliable sources. Why don't you do something useful for a change? Its damaging actually what you are doing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Note

This time the case has gone in your favour, as I myself actually don't see the neccessity of the mafia section and have no intentions of protecting it. Having said that, your conduct has been continuously disruptive on Wikipedia. You always remove sourced info, which is often essential. You will have to learn to use the talk page when necessary. I see you have once been blocked already for disruptive editing. Next time I see something as inappropriate as I've seen so far, your case will be taken to WP:Arbitration, where a full report of your history and conduct will be filed. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Balabin

Hey! Did you actually find the article on another Wiki or did you base your argument on the concept of notability via other Wikis? I can't find it anywhere but I'm assuming it's on Russian Wikipedia and the different alphabet is just throwing me off the scent. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument has nothing to do with other wikis. The cited Catholic Encyclopedia is a well-known reference work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I thought by saying Speedy Keep and that you agreed with him meant that you shared his argument which was that because it's notable on another Wiki, it's notable here. I'm sure you can imagine my confusion.

You seem to know more about the Catholic Encyclopedia than me. Is it important enough that if it finds a subject notable, it's notable here? I would certainly think it's a reliable source but it's a single source so I'm not sure that it fully satisfies WP:GNG unless it's significantly more important than your average reliable source. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't seem to be in it. Can you verify that he is? I left a message in the AfD. We should probably continue discussion there. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Poonam Pandey

Can you explain how the line "biggest hoax of recent times" an exaggeration of cited source? Please note that the line has been taken from the source itself with no exaggeration/addition/modification done by me. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Because that's not what the source said. It said "may be," not is. The comment was journalistic hyperbole, and not worth encyclopedic notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pandora Peaks

My edits, stating the model’s real name Stephanie Schick were undone with comment “unsourced at best…”. The real name, however, is true fact and can be found, for instance, on the IMDB or is stated on other language WP, see Pandora Peaks. What is required to validate my edits? — Pendethan (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A sourse meeting the requirements of WP:RS and WP:BLP. Neither IMDB nor other-language wikipedias meet those requirements. And, of course, being credited under one name in a film doesn't demonstrate that that's the subject real name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

- This is funny that someone like this has a Wikipedia article. Just wanted to add my 2 cents! :) - Marty2Hotty (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

About your edition in the Thore Schölermann article.

I was taken by surprise about your removal of the information about his relationship with Jana Julie Kilka from the "Personal life" section, labeling it as "outdated gossip" and saying that it didn't have significance.

What criterion should we use for including something under "Personal life"? Because I think a personal relationship is way more relevant that his childhood pets (something that you kept on your edition), and I think the sources were better than the youtube videos used as sources for the pet facts.

And well, being an actor, and being about who he is dating, it seems logical that most, if not all, the sources that refer to this are gonna be tabloids. What kind of sources should we use for it not to be qualifiable as gossip?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy

- Hello, you have been helpful in the past. I have a question and worked on creating the Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy article. It's a film but I'm not quite sure how to upload a low resolution photo. The photo is available on the movie's Facebook page and I reduced the quality significantly: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4289/ecstasy7.jpg - I would like to have this as the poster on the page. I went to Partition (2007 film)'s picture page and it shows that pictures that are low resolution for movies can be added on. I was wondering if you can upload it and attach it on the page. Thanks again for your help. - Marty2Hotty (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

- I was able to upload the photo through the help pages. I used a poster, which I read, meets the Wikipedia guidelines for "non-free" - commercial posters or something to that extent. Learning something new everyday! - Marty2Hotty (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Principal

To: Hullabalooo Wolfowitz

Re: Victoria Principal

I was surprised that you edited out all information about Victoria Principal's marriage to Harry Glassman. On her Wiki page, all it states is that she remarried in 1985 and divorced in 2006.

I don't know why she [or you] for that matter are trying to downplay the fact that she was married to one of Beverly Hill's most noted plastic surgeons but you deleted that.

As for his arrest for domestic violence, see the following links:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0066117/

http://tv.yahoo.com/victoria-principal/contributor/840865/bio

I included in my edit that charges were never filed by her and that she vehemently denied any allegations of spousal abuse. I didn't even include the fact that she was admitted to Cedars-Sinai after his arrest.

I also have the Redbook Magazine wherein she states that she and Glassman decided not to have children as it would mar her body contradicted by her statements in a Lifetime Intimate Portrait where she says that she was unable to have children -- both of which were duly referenced in my edit.

You wrote in undoing these edits: lacks references required for content of this sort in living person's biography; Undid revision 457429063 by Lisa kristin1 (talk)) (undo)

Why undo edits that were perfectly valid and you could have checked out for yourself? I didn't write one thing that was not true about Ms. Principal and you had no business removing it.

lisakristin1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa kristin1 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk:Nica Noelle#Personal life.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring

• Your recent behavior is being discussed here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Status update/storm

Due to the imminent arrival of the wast coast snowstorm, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted several times this afternoon (Saturday), and both my area and the area where my ISP operates are expected to be subject to power outages later today, possibly extended outages. So I'm quite likely not to be editing for a while, even after we clear out the fallen trees, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiMedal for Janitorial Services

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services for continually cleaning out the nonsense clogging the gutters. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated note, I would kindly propose that you might want to do some archiving of your talk page. Cheers again! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Love

Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhonda Rydell

I have noticed you deleted the page on Rhonda Rydell. Beside having not being informed (according to normal procedure in Wiki) of the deletion, I was not able to take part to the discussion. IMHO motivation appears somehow arguable: despite having only 2 movies and few appearance I recall (and it is in my user page) Jimbo's idea of wikipedia: free access to information, and I might agree that my article on Albiruni or on other economic topics are much more interesting and "encyclopedic". again IMHO the motivations adduced apprear not to be solid ground as principle for deletion. What I mean is that I have found other 30+ wiki-pages of biographies with less than Rhonda Rydell's content and references. As I did not have been informed in the deletion procedure, can I ask you to review your decision according to [Wikipedia:DRV] wiki deletion review procedure? She has over 1.4 million pages linking to her, despite she retired in 1998, she has an interesting story behind. She is not famous for the Confidence Man (very few know about this) , but she was well know before. Cheers The Lone Ranger^{Hit me with a good one!} 12:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Noel Ashman

I had previously declined a G4 speedy. Obviously we disagree over whether it has been changed enough. I said in the edit summary I would send it to AfD, but I think it would be singularly awkward for I will probably want to support keeping on the basis of the club ownership. Perhaps you should do the AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding speedy decline of Habib Construction Services Pakistan

This article is a completely an advert and "unsalvageably promotional". The proof of it is another article made in sep 2011 which was speedily deleted by Fastily under G11--Habib Construction Services Pvt. Ltd..The same article has been copy pasted and used here with minor changes. See] this for the page on 20 sep 2011. Moreover it has a lack of notability because it finds no mention in news articles,see this.Do pardon my audacity. Vivekananda De--tAlK 03:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously disagree; whatever promotional content there might be can be addressed by ordinary editing. If you're convinced the subject isn't notable, nominate the article for the AFD process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hullaballoo's exactly right on this one. If nothing else, the first sentence wasn't spam, and even if everything else was removed would've been enough to stop any other type of speedy. I've gone ahead and done some quick editing to the page to fix the major advertising concerns, even though it's likely to be deleted at AfD. Cheers, both of you. lifebaka++ 05:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

==Sockpuppetry case==

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Gay Donor Ban

Please stop deleting perfectly legitimate edits I have made on the FDA and IBTS pages. Everything I have posted is referenced and is certainly not "axe grinding" as you dismissively claim. The ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood in these countries is a matter of great controversy and the agencies concerned have been heavily criticised for following such policies. It's only right then that this should be recorded on the pages concerned, and just because you may approve of the bans or believe they should not be controversial does not alter this reality. I believe you are being deliberately disruptive, having twice deleted my edits. PinkPolitico80 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC) PinkPolitico80

I have left a welcome message on this new editor's talk page. PinkPolitico80, please do not try to read another editor's mind. You have no idea what this editor believes about the topic in question. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is acting to ensure that these article are written from the neutral point of view. It is up to you to propose and discuss potentially controversial changes on these article's talk pages, and to gain consensus before adding such material. These additions are controversial by definition because at least two editors disagree with you. So don't get into a fight - instead discuss, debate and seek consensus. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed--Cullen is, as usual, right. But Hullaballoo, your attention is requested at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration#Gay_Donor_Ban (by way of ANI). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

C Love

Hi , we you please give some feedback at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amy Daly - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand

Only warning. Cease defending anti-Semites, or you will be punished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needback2 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

Just a short note from a totally uninvolved editor (I'm not voting here and have no history with either the candidate or with you). I think you've gone over the borderline of civil/uncivil; I appreciate the points you're trying to make, but the language in which you're making them is too strongly confrontational. Maybe you had a particularly bad day, but perhaps an apology for some of your word / phrase choices might be in order. Things like "That's some of the most shameless and awful wikilawyering I've ever seen", and "One was so plainly a porn source that the most blithering of idiots could not have mistaken it." It's going too far to say that an editor is worse than "the most blithering of idiots". I'm sure a couple of words of apology would be in order. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Linking MQS' RFA with an alleged child rapist by referencing them in this discussion is so unacceptable I can't really comprehend what you were thinking. This is so unlike you that I'd like to request you to step back and take a break from the RFA or at least carefully consider your actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Assuming the best of intentions, I think that was probably to show how easy it is to go horribly wrong with a news story about someone with the same name. Having said that, this example was certainly too extreme. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my purpose, exactly. My statement noted that such a link was not appropriate to use in a substantive discussion, but that Mr. Schmidt claimed it was appropriate to bring such links to the community's attention based only on similarity of names and search engine results, without even attempting to ensure that the person involved was correctly identified. Before making the statement, I'd looked over WP:DBTF, an essay linked from WP:Notability (people), which presents similarly misassociated sources to make the same point I made in the Schmidt RFA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that one - I was already 99.9% sure of it, anyway, but thanks. On the whole, though, do you think you could work on being a little bit less angry in your posts? Part of the problems that follow on from such anger is that people focus on the tone, and not the content and intent, so may well miss / dismiss any valid concerns you have simply because it's uncomfortable to read such anger. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, will expand my efforts to include the more mundane areas, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. We may cross paths at AFD discussions in the future... sometimes in agreement about a keep or a delete, and sometimes not... but as it is inappropriate, I will never use the mop to close any where we both have commented, I will respect consensus, and I will avoid closing any if consensus one way or t'other is not quite clear. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia

The cornerstone of Ankit Fadia's career was that at age 16 the U.S. Government asked him to decrypt a steganographic message from Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, no one has collaborated this statement, the branch of the U.S. Government that does code cracking is the National Security Agency, they are the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and they are one of the largest consumers of electricity in Maryland, likely to run their acres of code cracking supercomputers, they don't need to call 16 year old foreign national to break messages from Al Qaeda.

There has been no confirmation that Al Qaeda has used steganography as that would confirm sources and techniques of intelligence gathering, the only reporter that wrote something about Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and steganography was Jack Kelley of USA Today who was let go for fictionalizing his stories. Now when you take the story from MiD Day, which was in both their print and online editions, and posted on Ankit Fadia's website, Fadia mentions that "The agencies had tracked some emails where few people were frequently exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne They had used technography to send messages." While MiD Day likely transcribed technography as Steganography this would have been impossible in the days or even months after the 9/11 attacks as Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002.

There is no computer security technology called technography but steganography which allows users to hide messages in pictures, video and sound files. News reports that Fadia has been quoted in over the years have him deciphering this message from Osama bin Laden's men in the months after 9/11, a few source this as happening in November 2001, and now he's saying that these groups were exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne in November 2001 when Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002. I am not going to say this whole story is a lie, but given that he's repeated this story over and over again, adding new things here, how does this not qualify as biographical information when its published online and the dates don't mesh.

From his own website - http://www.ankitfadia.in/who_is_ankit_fadia.html - In November 2001, Fadia was consulted by a classified intelligence agency for breaking an encrypted message sent by one of Osama Bin Laden's men.

Cracking the Code - http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/youth/article49478.ece?homepage=true - after the September 11 attacks, the U.S Government found some encrypted mails. The mails apparently had only pictures and no text accompanying them. “The pictures followed the steganography pattern where in photographs with embedded messages are used. I gave a few suggestions on decoding them. It was exciting as I was only 16 then. They usually never give any feedback as it is classified information but since I received a few projects even after that I feel I have been of use at some level,” smiles the 24-year-old.

Don't you find it the least bit odd about Fadia mentioning Avril Lavigne pictures in this story? Doesn't this qualify in the same league as having the second best hacking site by the FBI when there has never been any list to that effect?

Please reconsider the undid with this information.

Thanks!

Shawn Fynn (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a BLP, and requires reliably sourced information rather than original research or analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Moyles

Instead of repeatedly removing long standing and cited content, could please explain your actions on the talk page. You may have a point, but declaring something as "not legitimate" really doesn't explain anything and sounds like just an opinion. Regardless of whether it was a 'legitimate' award, or not, it would seem to me that Stonewall's response to Moyles in regard to the events being discussed are notable and relevant. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I've already said, this was covered on BLPN; invective pretending to be an award shouldn't be presented as one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Where on BLPN? Your refusal to explain properly or discuss your edit isn't helping anyone. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reinstating contentious content to a BLP without consensus, after it's been removed by more editors than the number who support it, is impermissible edit warring. The burden of persuasion is on your side, and your failure to bother to look through multiple relevant discussions won't excuse your violations, nor will repeated talk page natterings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea how many editors support its retention because you have totally failed to discuss the issue. Recent edits demonstrate it being re-added by a number of editors after its removal without discussion. Vague reference to "BLPN" is completely inadequate and your dismissal of establishing talk page consensus as "natterings" is a very worrying disregard for core policy for an experienced editor. It is you who wish to remove this long-standing content, it is you who should properly explain what you are doing and why. Hurling 3RR warnings at other editors simply because you can't be bothered with "natterings" is not civil behaviour and not building consensus.

I ask you again, where on BLPN is your edit supported as part of WP:BLP? Where is it shown that this is "invective pretending to be an award"? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your change to the Chris Moyles article and explain your actions on the talk page. Edit warring and ignoring other editors is a violation of Wikipedia policy on establishing consensus. Please stop this and discuss. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for removing the "attack" award from the appropriate BLP articles. Wasn't there something similar to this at the Sean Hannity BLP page about adding misinformer of the year award to his bio? I fully support your efforts and applaud your fairness. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial tyranny (2nd nomination)

Please take a second look at this discussion. Some additional avenues of resolution have been proposed, but the discussion is currently at a loggerhead. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk:Lily Cade#2012 award nomination.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Iris Robinson

Do not remove material under a misleading edit summary. You know well that the BLPN agreed that content could be decided on an article by article basis and certainly not removed across all articles as you claim. Discuss it on the talk page and if you use misleading edit summaries again I will ask for your behaviour to be examined. Your action on the Iris Robinson article does you no credit. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't post threats based on misleading claims on my talk page, or anybody else's. It's clear the BLPN discussion does not support adding such disputed and derisive material to a BLP without consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Leaky Caldron 00:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop posting phony warnings. Removal of content that's not compliant with WP:BLP is exempt from from 3RR limits, and adding back contentious, disputed material to BLPs without consensus support is a BLP violation. The relevant BLPN discussion made evident the disputed content does not have consensus support. And at the previous related edit warring complaint, which I filed, your argument was rejected. Your behavior amounts to deliberate disruption to evade the requirements of WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal without consensus

Regarding this edit. You know very well that no consensus has been reached for the removal of this, both on this article and in BLPN generally. Despite being urged to, you have also declined to join the discussion regarding it on the article talk page. Your continued insistence on removing, against consensus, is therefore disruptive and your edit summaries are at best deliberately misleading. Consensus is against you on this matter. I ask you to accept this rather than continued edit warring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't post deceptive nonsense and phony warnings on my talk page or anybody else's. WP:BLP stands against including such disputed, contentious content in articles about living persons without consensus support; the burden of proof is on those seeking inclusion, not those supporting its removal. Forking discussion to individual talk pages just because the general discussion doesn't go your way and demanding that users who disagree with you engage in repetitive debates is simply disruption, not good faith editing. And the lengthy and extensive BLPM discussions make quite evident that removal of the disputed content wasn't against consensus. You also know perfectly well that your complaint was not sustained when I posted a 3RR/edit warring notice related to this issue. If anybody's being "deliberately misleading" here, it's you. There's nothing resembling a consensus supporting your argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the BLPN discussion is wholly incorrect. Make the move on Iris Robinson without Talk Page discussion and it's straight to 3RR and you don't have a leg to stand on. Leaky Caldron 01:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just a deliberate misstatement of fact, and you know it. The BLPN discussion on the Stonewall mock-awards was lengthy and extensive, you participated in it, and it rather evidently produced no consensus support for the disputed, contentious content you insist on adding to a BLP. It's hard to see your claim otherwise as anything but deliberate dishonesty. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct. 6 editors agreed that a case could be made in individual articles, if not across all of them. You know where the talk page is if you want to enter into a proper policy based discussion. Also, I will not tolerate further accusations of dishonesty, which I consider to be a WP:NPA violation. Leaky Caldron 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for retention established, and this must be evident to an old stager like yourself. You're engaged in vandalism. Please desist. --82.41.22.244 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, I reinstated mention of the "award" simply because I found that it was also reported in the Guardian. I don't understand what the controversy is. The paragraph talks about Stonewall and their criticism toward Moyles and it's unfit to also mention they gave him a mock award when it's reported by reliable sources? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. I don't like requesting blocks on genuine editors, but your behaviour is disruptive.

• You have now reverted your removal of long-term cited material on Chris Moyles 12 times, and it has been repeatedly reverted by others.
• You have reverted it three times in the last 12 hours.
• You first began your edits by claiming a consensus from a discussion that simply did not exist.
• After it was discussed, you now claim consensus doesn't exist because you don't agree with it.
• You refuse to discuss your edits on the talk page, and are pursuing a blanket policy that found no support on BLPN.
• Your interpretation of discussions are uniquely your own and at odds with everyone else.

People have been very patient with you. Edit Chris Moyles once more in this manner without consensus and I will request you are blocked. For everyone's benefit, please, accept that consensus is against you on this one and move on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Kat Von D

This is a neutral notice of an RfC for a page on which you have been an editor. If you wish to participate, the discussion is taking place here. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Veronika Zemanová

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. A user has contested the deletion of Veronika Zemanová on my talk page. Since you nominated the page for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"nonfree images used in discography"

I noticed you removed some pics from Colton Ford with the above edit summary. I couldn't care less whether they are there or not, but was curious as to why use would be justified on a standalone page but not as part of merged discography. (Those images got there because articles on the individuals were merged away.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Because that's what WP:NFC says. It's not the practice I'd prefer, but it enjoys pretty clear consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that line in NFC now. On a completely unrelated matter, it would be great if you could archive this page. (I'm sure I'm not the first to request this.) It took me a couple tries to get this page to load fully even on a high speed connection due to its huge size. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

inre this discussion

While I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person this article meets a criteria of WP:NF... and that it does have coverage... I agree that its current tone is problematic. And while often adressable, I ask that you take a look at this edit and understand that I agreee that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I hardly think that inserting paraphrases from a press release into an article, as you did here, is anything resembling appropriate editing. Second, your distortion of NFILM, removing the essential qualifying language "and is a major part of his/her career," is inconsistent with both policy in general and well-established community practice regarding this genre. And you didn't even represent your (inadequate) sources accurately, since none of them say that Part 2 has been released yet (a claim that not even the studio's own website doesn't seem to make). Slipshod all the way around. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Demi Moore

Hi, Hulla. I appreciate very much you fighting the tabloid-ery there. On a separate subject, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Demi Moore about her parents' birth certificate, and I hope you'll join. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk:Ender's_Game_(short_story)#Removal_of_File:AUG_1977_ASF.jpg.
Message added 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at An Illusive Man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removing non-free image from Mike Branson

Why did you remove File:Mike branson.jpg? I know he is still a living person, but he has been inactive since 1998 or 1999. Per WP:NFC#UUI, he retired from porno business. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

For exactly the reason stated in my edit summary: "nonfree image used as general illustration in BLP." The active/inactive distinction in WP:NFC#UUI expressly applies only to "groups." The idea that exceptions should be made for retired porn performers was discussed extensively and again rejected not too long ago (even in the case of Japanese performers, where national privacy laws might present an additional difficulty in acquiring free images). Policy and consensus are quite clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What about "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance"? And where is that discussion? --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The "earlier visual appearance" exception is extremely narrow, rarely allowed, and needs to be supported by well-sourced commentary. For an example of the issue (some of which was conducted on file talk pages, which disappeared when the nonfree files were deleted), see [121]. Also see several discussions at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 47. It was a heated discussion over about a dozen articles, and its conclusion is reflected in the fact that nonfree images have been removed from virtually all porn performer BLPs; I don't know of any exceptions, although one or two might have slipped through. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:CQ#File:Mike branson.jpg for another discussion about this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Margaret Tyzack CBE 2010.jpg

Should I contest the "speedy" tag that you put? I have added "non-free fair use in" tag. Why was this tagged? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD issue

Yes, I'm aware that it is fowled up, and not to be rude, but it doesn't really help the predicament.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, if you just read the directions at WP:AFD, you'd learn how to do it correctly. It's also not helpful to leave the wrong AFD discussion in the log indefinitely; once you saw it was messed up, you should have removed it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for the original AFD. That one is from 2006. So, I'm not sure how to clear out logs and whatnot. All I know is that it was passed for deletion at that time. Please pardon me for not being a Wikipedia master. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd just read the directions, you'd be able to fix this by now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for ur contributions but it is barring useful resources about Sanaya_Irani

dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz regards and love

You are a senior than me in Wikipedia but You also have certain limitations and I am sorry to say that yopu are not and Indian so You don't even Indian celebs . Its a major fact of her Biography and changes are really very sad because you are barring useful information to the page viewers of page Sanaya_Irani .

We know the small to small details about her (Sanaya_Irani) and I had given the informations according to unbiased and resourceful materials. I am again edting the page and please do reply me in this and please do understand to which country you velongs i can't edit that country's celebrity page and as i do not know i didn't seen her work

so please understand the aspects of the page and i will provide all references to the indian cites of Sanaya_Irani.

again respect to you and your contributions

Saurabh kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhkr wiki (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling

Just because I overturned your wrong and unhelpful tag bomb at Chelsea Charms doesn't mean you should try to gut every edit I ever made. That's a little crazy, and you should just stop now. NewExLionTamer (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Abusive sock at work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just examining your edits tells me a great deal. Most of your "removal of trivia" is reverted by other editors. The fact that this is so would indicate few people agree with your extreme views on personal life information. You have a point about tabloid fodder about one night stands, flings etc but long term relationships which are widely covered in rleiable sources like BBC etc are most certainly encyclopedic and meet guidelines. In fact some relationships are so well known that it would be censorship to not even mention them. If you continue to operate in this way I will consider opening an investigation and RFC investigating your disruption. There's clearly a difference between removing unsourced tabloid fodder and removing any mention of personal relationships which is sourced like you do. Wikipedia is not censored, but your views are so extreme that you even harsher than a typical censor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt

Your views are extreme, orthodox and trolling. Have to agree with many of the above commentators. Stop trolling. Continue to overturn what you think is wrong is not really an intelligent way to operate any encyclopedic community, such as wikipedia. Seeing from history,you have a history of being blocked and called out. You make the Wikipedia community unpleasant and encourage fighting.

Your recent editing history at Linda Ronstadt shows that you have a history of editing and removing content with any discussion. I am not claiming the images "free content". Instead of reverting and editing work you should have and please consider using the article's talk pagebefore removing other people's work under your claim of removal of copyright violations. All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. If you would have taken the time to click on the photos itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007 Sharkentile (talk) 8:49, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright/NFCC violations, including the use of nonfree content without article-specific NFCC rationales, is subject to immediate removal. Comments like "it's free content"[122] and "prove no valid NFCC rationale"[123] are completely inappropriate and so incompatible with NFCC policy as to call wither competence or your good faith into question. As does your departure from civility policy here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice try but drop the THE editing commentS you continue to reference are irrelevant to FACT. Fact is, READ THE PHOTO TEMPLATES

All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. CLICK ON THE PHOTOS itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007. That is FACT. Sharkentile (talk) 9:19, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule and edit-warring under colour of WP:NFCC, as you did at Linda Ronstadt. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tristessa (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is an unvalid block as defending the NFCC is an exemption from the 3RR. This block should be lifted immediately. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The exemption doesn't apply in this case, as this is clearly a dispute between the two users regarding questionable content. In contrast, WP:3RRNO#3RR_exemptions requires that the content be "unquestionably" a violation of the NFCC criteria, and I believe this is not satisfied by the editing behaviour. Of course, if you consider I'm incorrect, I'm always open to a second opinion. --Tristessa (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz, I don't see how the inclusion of album images in the artist article is a reasonable interpretation of our NFCC criteria. 28bytes (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NFCC dispute on Linda Ronstadt

I have closed the AN/I thread regarding your NFCC dispute, having blocked you both for 24 hours for having violated the three-revert rule. Please read my closing comments. I hope you will resolve this dispute through discussion rather than repeated reversion in future. After your block expires, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help to settle this between you. --Tristessa (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As the unblock request I am working on will establish in detail, I did not violate 3RR. The fourth removal of the disputed content in the last 24 hours was performed by User:Dr. Blofeld [124]. I reverted only three times, expressly citing NFCC/copyright concerns, which are a solidly-recognized exception to the 3RR limit, and declared a good-faith reliance on that exception. I have never seen an editor blocked in these circumstances, and in previous disputes of this sort my reliance on that exception has been sustained. If you had discussed this with me prior to blocking, I would also have pointed out to you that I had intentionally stopped short of breaking the 3RR rule and brought the matter to ANI, where I pointed out the clear requirement stated in NFCC policy that these images be removed. At this point, I believe that every other outside commenter has agreed with my point about the requirements of WP:NFCCE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, and on the basis of your explanation (and comments from others), I agree with you. I apologise for the error and will unblock you. That said, could I please ask you to take this to discussion in future rather than reverting? Cheers, --Tristessa (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (especially pointing to previous community discussions) would help the other user understand, but no, he shouldnt leave those images in the article. Album covers in discographies and artist pages were literally the canonical example of the abuse we were trying to correct when the community tightened up NFCC enforcement a few years back. They were specifically called out as what not to do. -- ۩ Mask 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Pro forma request. While Tristessa has unblocked, per the discussion above, an autoblock still remains in effect. With the autobloack functioning, I can't post to Tristesse's talk page. I'd prefer not to use the autoblock-specific template here due to a rather odd event that occurred after my IP address was posted publicly. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Autoblock cleared. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nikolai Kurbatov

Hi. It is possible to save the page "Nikolai Kurbatov"? In addition to links to livejournal, there is reference to kinopoisk.ru, rusarticles.com, pstu.ru, imdb.com, facebook.com, kinoafisha.net, infomaniya.ru ... Thanks, N-k90 (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it could survive in its current form. Most of the sources aren't reliable enough under WP:RS and WP:BLP, which it would be helpful for you to review. The article also appears to be almost entirely copied from the "rudata" page, which appears to be a wiki, and that page carries a copyright notice that doesn't, at least in the Google translation, appear to clearly offer a Wikipedia=compatible license. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Dancing Tonight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inside Out (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You reinserted contentious material in a BLP

Please self revert in article Yoko Ono. The removal was explained and is further explained on the talk page. 174.255.112.150 (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of Getty Images

I'm not sure what you're getting at with these. Why does copyright owned by Getty Images matter? The whole point of non-free images is that permission of the copyright holder is irrelevant and unneeded. Thus saying "expressly identified as Getty Images photo" is a pointless non-rationale. If being a Getty images photo disqualifies a picture from fair use, I wouldn't have uploaded it, since as noted I did in fact "expressly identify" the copyright holder, as image uploaders should always do. Can you explain your rationale here? SnowFire (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per F7, "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately." (emphasis in original) Per WP:NFC#UUI #7, "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" is an "unacceptable use". Wp:NFCC, which is policy, incorporates the F7 criteria by reference. Note, for example, the final comment in this recent discussion[125], representing the closer's rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I looked more closely at criteria F7 which you linked to. The Dominque Strauss-Kahn image you speedy'd does in fact have "critical commentary" on the image, but it seems like my dispute is with that part of the non-free content criteria, not you. I find it utterly bizarre that Wikipedia should treat images from Getty differently from copyrighted images from an independent photographer. (And edit conflict, yeah, you posted the same thing. I still disagree but I understand your rationale at least now. Is there any explanation *why* listed anywhere?) SnowFire (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume it's because Getty is actively marketing the images for online use, and that posting them on one of the most visible websites in the world interferes with their licensing opportunities. By their standard licensing rates, long-term use on Wikipedia would typically run to several thousand USD per image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should just open a thread at the talk page for all that I fear going to Wikipedia policy talk pages. That said, just to straighten things up on good faith... the "or photo agency" clause to the critiera you linked to was added after the Nico Smith photo was uploaded (20 June 2011. So I was pretty much in the right at the time. I can't find any discussion on the policy talk page around that time, either ([126]). This is all the more reason to go slow - I'm not really a fan of using speedy deletion to enforce this. SnowFire (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content if you're interested. SnowFire (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have posted the sourced commentary on the image itself at the file talk page, with appropriate emphasis, in case you were unable to locate it in the article. Since it is the subject of sourced commentary, at least in Perp walk, I respectfully request you either withdraw your speedy nom entirely as it is clearly invalid, or open another FfD if you believe it is because it is pretty obvious there would be a difference of opinion, as there has been on two previous occasions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per my comments on the file talk page, I decline to remove the speedy. None of the sourced commentary refers specifically to the disputed image, but to all images of the perp walk. Given the large number of available images, there is no reason to create an exception to our policy/practice concerning such images. The prior discussions did not address this NFCC issue, so the speedy proposal should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. I do expect further discussion, either at FFD or DRV, but I think the principle should be clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As a purely procedural note... the point of speedy deletions are to quickly delete items about which there is no discussion expected (such as requests from the uploader), or which are the result of vandalism / trolling / clueless newbies / etc. It is always valid to make an XfD even for "speedyable" reasons. If there's a good faith discussion at all, then it probably can go to XfD. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at File talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at File talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling

This user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz completely trolled this article Choky Ice Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!(talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey08 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NFCC, as well as WP:NPOV. It's utterly ridiculous to describe a BLP including a large number of unreferenced quotes attributed to the article subject as "perfectly sourced". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You obviously have something against this actor CUT THE CRAP, all is well sourced especially the part where it says "career" It states the date, the name of the site etc.. I REPORTED YOU FOR VANDALISM! STOP TROLLING!!!--LowKey08 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)