User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not bad faith[edit]

Hi. You're not receiving bad faith or summary mistreatment by admins. Several of us have been extra patient in dealing with this problem because we don't want to block you. But if you keep fighting against community standards, that's what's going to happen, regrettably. There's no rush. Why don't you discuss this. If you can make a good case for your position, we might be able to accommodate you somehow, or there might be a compromise. Jehochman Talk 15:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to point out the obvious - but Hullaballoo, at the moment, due to the move-war that you've initiated, when you moved User talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz/Archive 2, you moved it to User talk:User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, which was tagged and deleted as an implausible typo. At the moment, you're entire talk page history has been deleted. Continuing to try and redirect your archive to your talk page is, well, futile at the moment. @Fram, Jehochman: can one of you restore the revisions to the archive? Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The history is at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 2. Fram (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Derp.... I went off of your edit at User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive2 ;) /me goes back to sleep Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Block notice[edit]

Sadly, I have now blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You technically still can edit this page, and thus reinstate the redirect. This will only lead to the removal of your talk page access as well, so please don't.

You were given plenty of chances to discuss this, but only replied by reinstating your preferred but for others clearly unacceptable situation. This is disruptive editing. Your user talk page is not your property to do with like you please, it is a place for other editors to contact you. Making this deliberately much harder is not something that can be accepted. Fram (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could back away from the cliff[edit]

HW, if I unblock you, and move your talk page back here temporarily as a gesture of respect, can I assume you'll discuss this at WP:AN, and will abide by whatever consensus forms there? That way you could have some control over how it is resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Flo, you doing that action would be disputed. Please discuss it first. If you are right, I'm sure you are eloquent enough to generate a consensus for your proposal. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Fram said he was OK with another admin doing it at AN. And you handled this poorly, contributing to the dysfunction. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
No, Fram said if it seems likely that he'll stop redirecting his talk page of course - Not an agreement to restore the disputed talk page here, unblock him, and then ask him to discuss it at AN. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your proposed admin action. The dysfunction is that the editor is using his talk page in a way that prevents others from communicating with him. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you should not use sysop access in furtherance of a disagreement. Go to WP:AN and generate a consensus to unblock the editor. That will provide an opportunity perhaps to discover the best way forward. Your judgement is not better than everybody elses'. Jehochman Talk 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear God in Heaven, you people are morons. You enjoy this, don't you? You enjoy escalating shit, and pissing all over any attempt to deescalate. This conversation is between HW and me, and if he agrees then I'm going to do this, and if you want to whine about it somewhere, that will be fine. Shame on you. And yes, in this case, my judgement is better than yours, because I'm trying to help, and you're trying to enforce. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Woah! First of all, you're assuming bad faith, and you're being condescending. I tried getting Hull to open up and talk about why he was opposed, and he kept edit warring to restore his talk page. He chose his actions, not me, not Jehochman. I understand that you're trying to deescalate, but you can't unliaterally go against consensus that's developed at AN. All Jehochman is asking for you to do is see if the there's a consensus to revert, unblock, and then try and discuss with HW. FWIW, I'm deeply offended that you're insinuating that I think this is a great thing to happen. The last thing anyone wanted here was for HW to be blocked. No wonder this community is going to shit with all this bad faith. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've unwatched this page. Jehochman Talk 16:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Guys, yes the talk page was getting to be a problem. But talking it out over days rather than barging in and just changing it would have been a much better call. It isn't like it's some new emergency--it's been years. Let Floq and HW see if they can't find a reasonable way forward. Hobit (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • While I appreciate your comments and Floquenbeam's, no reasonable response from me is going to matter. This was obviously an out-of-process put-up job designed to discredit and remove a "troublesome" editor whose adherence to and enforcement of policies makes a certain claque of administrators/editors uncomfortable.

Note that

  1. The AN discussion was initiated by an editor who I had little or no prior interaction with, and who had made no attempt at substantive discussion of the issues with me. That normally precludes resorting to the drama boards.
  2. The editor who initiated the AN discussion then canvassed eight users, just about all of whom have engaged in disputes with me over various issues, but not editors who had expressed similar concerns but who were usually on the same "side" as I was in BLP disputes. It is remarkable, to say the least, that Technical 13 somehow managed to select the two admins whose closes I recently supported overturning in currently-active discussions at DRV [1] [2] and one editor whose current DRV proposals I've opposed [3]. Even more remarkably, the editor managed to search my supposedly difficult-to-handle talk page, find all of these users to canvass, and post to WP:AN in about 15 minutes. It is certainly reasonable to suspect this enterprise was set up in advance, and I see no reason to doubt it.
  3. There have been roughly 200 posts to the talk page in the last 90 days or so. That hardly is consistent with the claim that I "effectively disable[d] his [my] talk page by letting it get so large it will not load reliably".
  4. Despite my running an old OS (Windows XP) and using a notoriously lousy but, in my area, unavoidable ISP, I don't have any trouble accessing the talk page, even if I'm not logged in. The only time I had trouble was when the stinking Visual Editor was active. I suspect that many of the editors who actually have problems have editing "enhancements", scripts, gadgets, addons, browser extensions whatever, that subtly degrade their performance. When some editors report no serious problems and others report dysfunction, it is more likely that the problem's root cause is not the source page. I often have problems getting userspace pages including media files to load readily, and I'm not the only one, but I don't demand that everybody else restrict their pages to fit my idiosyncracies.
  5. I'm often in disputes here with publicists, promoters, and other folks who try to use Wikipedia as an internet marketing tool. I note that the summary disputed action here was taken buy a guy in the internet marketing business. That really smells. There's no way around it.
  6. I've also often been used as a poster child for admin abuse by commenters at Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, after a particularly atrocious admin blocked me for a comment made by another editor, refused to block the editor who made the comment, and refused to unblock after Checkuser confirmed no association with the other editor. That incident has led to a disproportionate number of conflicts with admins and editors who are hostile toward those sites, as well as a lack of deference on my part to administrative "authority". And some of what's happening here looks to be payback. And I'm sick and tired of Wolfowitz-only rules here, like being told I can't use the phrase "convicted criminal" to describe an actual convicted criminal, while allowing the article subject's girlfriend to use the same phrase to describe someone who was not convicted (or even charged with) any crime. You can't make stuff like that up.
  7. I clearly wasn't given anything like a reasonable opportunity to respond. I was notified about the AN discussion at about 1AM my time last night, saw nothing calling for an immediate response, and decided to wait until morning to see how things were sorting out. At the time Jehochman acted, there clearly was no consensus for his action (which he technically botched to begin with). As the length of this response indicates, acting without giving me a chance to respond was utterly uncalled for.
  • If you want to post any or all of this to WP:AN, @Hobit:, feel free. But this was a planned lynching, and I don't expect fair treatment in response; that's why I haven't posted an unblock request. It won't be the first time. Could be the last, though. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the time to respond Hullaballoo. Would you mind telling us why you're opposed to the requests to archive your page, and what, if anything, you would rather happen? I'll post this to the AN thread, if that's okay. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Read items 3 and 4, which directly address the threshold question. It's obvious from the responses that already show up at AN, though, that I wouldn't have received a fair hearing even had I responded instantly. And why didn't you post it in the appropriate, initial section? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
      • There was no smooth place to post your reply, so I made it it's own section. It shows others that you have replied and gives a spotlight to what you're saying, which is important for the overall discussion. Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you don't revert the archiving of your talkpage, when your 24hr-block expires. Trust me, a combative nature isn't going to help. It's a lesson that I've learned these last 2+ yrs. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • HW, perhaps we are BLP enemies (are we?), but here's some serious advice: they archived your talk page because it was absurdly long. If this is a vendetta against you, it is a very dumb one, and one you should ignore. If you're going to get intentionally blocked by reverting edits, let's make it over something really worthwhile to you!--Milowenthasspoken 22:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

HW, I don't think you and I have ever had a conflict, and FWIW I agree with everyone else that you should archive your talk page as a sign of respect for people trying to leave you messages (It took me quite a while to load your archived talk page this morning). I just don't agree with the way it was handled. I recognize some sensible people in that AN thread, so it's not all enemies.

You don't have to ask, I'll unblock you now as (at least) a token of de-escalation. Especially since it isn't preventing you from doing what you were blocked for, and because it's easier for you to post to AN than to have someone transfer your comments.

So where do you want to go from here? What reasonable outcome do you want to see? I'm pretty sure the page is going to end up getting archived, reading the writing on the wall, but it makes no sense for this to happen without your input on how. If it makes you more willing to discuss it, I'll move it back here until a final decision is reached, but that's admittedly just symbolic; barring an unforeseen development I can't imagine it staying that way forever. Do you want to archive it a different way? Or argue for not archiving it at AN? Or do you want to cut your losses and move on? Also, I note that while your comments above explain why you don't think it should have to be archived, it doesn't explain why you actually object to it being archived. Is it just a matter of not wanting busybodies telling you what to do, or is there more to it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict × 2)Some responses here as the editor who raised the issue in the first place. I'm guessing you feel like you are being "strong-armed" with "mob tactics", and since I'm aware of the fact that you've had multiple other conflicts (you're not alone in that), I'm not going to assume you are unjustified in thinking so.
As you mention in your first bullet point, The AN discussion was initiated by an editor who I had little or no prior interaction with, which means to me that you acknowledge the fact that I'm not here "just another member of the mob". I'll point out that I'm not an administrator (don't honestly want to be one at this point) and I'm usually on the other end of the stick (that everyone keeps telling me to drop). You seem to be complaining that I did not first try to discuss it with you before heading over to AN, and the reason I did not initiate further discussion with you on the topic before heading over to AN was that I was technically incapable of directly editing your user page; the only reason I managed to add the AN notice was because I did it through the API via Twinkle.
In your second bullet, you accuse me of CANVASSING eight other users, and based on your just about all of whom have engaged in disputes with me over various issues statement, you seem to think I did it to stack the deck against you only notifying people who you've had disputes with in the past. I'll say that I notified exactly nine people of the discussion at AN, yourself and the eight people who I linked to their requests on your user talk page for archival over the last nearly five years now. I notified them, because an action that they had performed involved them in the discussion when I linked those revisions. There was no other reason or motive behind it and I have no idea who you have or haven't had disputes with in the past, nor do I much care.
In the third bullet, you mention how 200 posts have been made to your talk page in the last 90 days. I'm not sure what your point in making that comment was suppose to be considering your page was too large 50 months ago and way way too large as much as a year ago. This is something that should have been done long ago and consistently.
You mention that your system and connection are lousy in your fourth point, and that you have no troubles loading your page. You then try to shift the blame to gadgets, userscripts, beta features claiming that it's not your fault if people can't communicate with you because they choose to use those features. I'll tell you that on my ShoeMaker test account, using nothing but wiki default settings and the monobook skin (I think that's what it is called), and a decent computer with a 15Mb cable connection, I still couldn't access your talk page and make a successful save (I keep getting the Wikimedia Error window). So, blaming the software just isn't going to fly for me.
As for the remainder of your bullet points, those seem to me to be out of context of what my goal was in starting the AN discussion in the first place. You seem to have taken a lot of stuff personally (and I'm not sure I blame you, I've felt very similar at times), and you've let that effect your judgement. For me it is simply a technical issue,l nothing more, nothing less. If you and Floquenbeam can reach an effective agreement for an archiving scheme that is reasonable for everyone and Floq wishes to end the block early based on that, then I entirely support that. I hope that you can resolve this quickly, and get back to happily editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Not hardly convincing. You give no explanation of why you decided to personalize this; you cited only one complaint in the last two years beside your own, which to a reasonable person would signal that you ought to consider it's not a major problem, and might well be at your end, you don't make any attempt to explain the remarkable correlation between the open DRVs and the selective list of editors to WP:CANVASS, you had no good reason to open an out-of-place discussion at AN rather than at the Village Pump (policy decisions and "technical decisions" aren't reserved for admins), leaving only the inference that your real interest was provoking action against me. And, frankly, if you don't believe the many recent posts to my talk page are signals that the problems you claim to be concerned with don't seem to affect most users, and in turn that the problems may well be at your end, than your technical competence is likely lower than you believe it is. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's just an unnecessary hassle to have to scroll down through a long talk page, the standard convention is to archive it, and a bunch of folks asked you to. So why the stubborn antisocial behavior? NE Ent 01:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Why the antisocial behavior? I'm practicing to be an admin! (rimshot) I would find it a bigger hassle to have to rummage through the large set of archives that would result from the standard archiving practices. I'm sick and tired of the Wolfowitz-only rules that get applied to me. No other editor was subjected to being blocked for actions taken by a different editor, even though that editor was not blocked or even warned. The editor who did this [4] wasn't sanctioned or warned in any way as long as I was seen as their main target. On and on, over and over. I don't believe that this dispute was initiated in good faith; the initiator hasn't given any remotely credible explanation of how they came to be involved; the improper CANVASSing was quite apparent, the discussion clearly never approached consensus, and yet summary action was taken for no reason beyond "Oh, fuck Wolfowitz, he's unmutual". As the late Mr Vonnegut would say, "The fix is in". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's hardly a Wolfowitz only rule; it's right in WP:TALKCOND "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." One of the commenters on AN made a similar request to another editor three days ago [5]. You were first asked over four years ago [6]. Part of being a member of a community is following conventions simply because they are conventions. NE Ent 12:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You may be naive enough to believe that, but it's utter bullshit. The AN complaint that started was obviously pretextual, brought in violation of the prescribed procedures at AN, not to mention those "standard conventions" you want to rely on. And it was improperly WP:CANVASSED, obviously and clumsily. But that's OK, because it's Wolfowitz. This wasn't about the talk page, even if you believe it was. "Part of being a member of a community is following conventions simply because they are conventions"? Nonsense. Part of being a member of a community is recognizing and accepting that communities are diverse, that different styles and opinions are legitimate, and that there's nothing wrong with being "unconventional". I got a few complaints a year about the talk page, mostly from editors pushing their side in active disputes -- and the fact that I have about as active a talk page as non-admins have puts the lie to the claim that the page significantly impeded communication. It's been open season on Wolfowitz here this year: It's OK for a paid publicist to make phony accusations of racism without consequences [7]; a venomous troll bent on defaming an article subject was allowed to continue [8] so long as the only editor she harassed was Wolfowitz [9] [10][11]. If you're going to join a lynching party, don't expect the guest of honor to appreciate your lovely choice of rope. No More Mr Nice Wolfowitz (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The only one personalizing this has been you. I didn't cite only one complaint other than my own, I listed eight of them, including my own ([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]), which to a reasonable person would signal that you ought to consider it is a major problem. There was a different editor for each one of those various requests for you to archive your talk page (using many various methods from starting a discussion on your talk page, to setting up a bot for you, to marking the page with the {{Archiveme}} template), those are the editors I pinged. Your repeated refusal to take a hint over the last five years indicated to me that there needed to be a discussion on a noticeboard that dealt with such issues. If I had gone to AN/I, then I would certainly agree that it would have been out of place; however, I went to AN which seemed like an appropriate place and the resulting discussion and consensus seems to confirm. As for your last comment there, you are certainly more than welcome to your opinion. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're working hard to demonstrate your lack of good faith. First of all, you've blatantly misquoted me. I said one complaint in the last two years besides your own. An average of one complaint a year, roughly, would not indicate a major problem, especially when so many of them came from editors on the opposite sides of disputes. There were a few that you didn't cite, but you carefully avoid explaining the fact that you went out of your to spot and improperly WP:CANVASS editors you expected to be hostile to me. Hell, your technically deficient signature may well do more to degrade performance across the project. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Dear God, this talk page is going to be as long as it was if we keep on with these long responses.--Milowenthasspoken 22:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we all please get on with the task in hand, not bickering over a page that, frankly, is for constructive discussion? The page has been archived, and the block removed, so there doesn't appear to be anything else constructive to happen here. Let's get back to improving the encyclopedia, which will be good however you look at it. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
"We've screwed you over, now get back to doing what we tell you" is not a communication that furthers improvement of the encyclopedia. This obviously isn't about the talk page, or about policy or guideline, but about slapping down an editor who is seen as sufficiently deferential to a claque of editors/admins. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you meant insufficiently. But fixing it might mean deferring to the claque... will the problems never end? Bazj (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
HW, you're only making things worst for yourself, by being combative. Don't make the mistakes that I've made in 2011, 2012 & 2013. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the canvassing; total WP:VOTESTACKING. Which means, if we discount the canvassed editors on AN, there really wasn't consensus for anything. (My personal opinion remains unchanged, but obviously that doesn't mean very much.) So the question is -- what do you want to do about it? I closed the AN thread as much to stop the HW bashing as anything else, and it's unclear to me whether re-opening would make things better or worse. Let me know if you want me to re-open the discussion. NE Ent 20:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • For the record I largely agree with NE Ent here. I feel this whole thing moved way (way) too fast and amounted to bullying. But the page was a (small) problem and probably needed to be addressed (from my home computer I'd tried to edit the old page and it took about 30 seconds to load but I've an old/crappy computer and a slow connection). I'd urge you to let it go as there really isn't anything more to be done. I hate letting people bully me (to the point of becoming irrational) so I get that might not be so easy to do. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a website ... it is what it is. You're not blocked. Go do what you want to do. — Ched :  ?  02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

About all that bother[edit]

Sorry about the recent railroading you got over at AN/I. Your talk page was too long but what was imposed on you was way outside of policy and precedent. They're getting awfully aggressive over at the AN shop these days. GraniteSand (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely outrageous; but, heh. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


There is a report, initiated by me, at WP:AN3#User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Mdann52 reguarding some of your recent edits. I'm going to see if there is any edit warring by the other side as well, and if so, I'll move this to a different venue, or report them too as appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

CSD tag removal[edit]

Please stop. Rodelyn Onggo is most certainly unremarkable. A quick Google search shows no reliable sources. Brollos also may not be notable, but I haven't translated the articles I found. Please do not remove these tags- that is an administrator's job.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It is evident you have no proper understanding of speedy deletion policy. Any editor, other than the page creator, may remove a speedy tag. You have been blitz-tagging new articles, mostly from new editors, without allowing their creators to finish writing them. Your tags are too often substantively wrong as well -- tagging Saleh al-Ogaili with A7 was just plain atrocious since the article undeniably asserted not just significance but notability, and it was plain as day that the creator was still working on it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Gordon[edit]

What I was doing was adding accurate information found on her article on Playboy One.

No, what you were doing was adding unsourced breast/cup sizes to women's bios, mostly BLPs/ The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
The information was taken directly from each woman's article on Playboy Online, I was simply adding information about the person.

Just a comment from a passerby[edit]

First of all I am not a big editor like many of you all, most of my edits have been spelling and punctuation errors. Second I don't know all the rules of Wikipedia, but I try my best to not be a bother to others, and I never believe I am the so called "final authority" on any subject. I am here to help and am interested in seeing articles provide the 'proper' and 'correct' information for the folks who read them (ignorance is due mainly to lack of information). This all being said...I find it very interesting that in recent days all the editors who have "corrected" me on any small faults or errors of mine, have themselves been guilty of making grave errors and been blocked or otherwise brought into check by the Administrators. You sir, from reading your Talk page, seem to have made several bad mistakes and made a number of people upset.

Now, the article on Karen Price I was editing and expanding, and was NOT finished yet working on. And yet you in your wisdom came and deleted my revisions and reverted it back to its original form. The information I gathered I TOOK directly off the main and proper source for any bio information on said person, her former employer Playboy Magazine. The bio information I was correcting on several Playmates, IF you would check, was taken off a website NOT affiliated with Playboy and several things were incorrect (cup size, weight, etc.).

Now I DO NOT appreciate people who "think" they know better swooping down and changing things when my intention is simply to correct information. I have noticed in Wikipedia several editors who seem to prowl the website just waiting for somebody to make a mistake, then they pounce. What should be done is the editor explains the mistake and gives the person the chance to make corrections THEMSELVES.

But sir, to you and ALL other editors who wish to correct any mistakes I make, PLEASE have the decency to tell me and give me the opportunity to make my own corrections.

GO THE HELL AWAY. You are obviously trolling me. You have been editing here since 2005; you have nearly 7 thousand edits, and you plainly are on notice of such central policies as WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:NFCC. You're nevertheless complaining because I've been removing unreferenced, poorly referenced, incorrectly referenced, and unsourced claims you've been inserting into articles without substantive discussion. And despite your puling about using "the main and proper source" about Karen Price, this three-stage edit,[12], adding the vital encyclopedic text "She is best known for being one of the largest breasted Playboy Playmates of the 1980s", is actually referenced to a message board archive [13] -- and no post on that page remotely supports the claim you make, despite the contributions of such noted authorities on popular culture as "Milkmaniac", "DruulEmpire", "cboobs", "r2d2", and the renowned academic authority "Loverofbigtits". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
LADY LOTUSTALK 18:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.


Thanks for removing my CSD tag on the 5sos page and Editions Musica Ferrum. I now realize I shouldn't have tagged either of them. Everymorning talk 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


I was mostly wary of the change because it was from an anon IP and made no attempt to explain its removal. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Bocassa, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Bocassa. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what you're doing is in good faith, but if you have concerns with deletion of an article, contest with the deletion according to the tag. Don't remove it. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:CIR. Anyone but the page creator can remove a speedy tag, and you know I'm not the page creator, because you've put a notice on their talk pag.e three times. Your insistence on reinstating a declined speedy approaches the abusive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:CIR is not policy, and if you want me to stop placing the tag, What criteria gives you the right to remove the tag? Then I will stop — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I need to apologize to you has you were on the right. I should have given more time for the editor to expand the article. I try to delete articles ASAP with no sources and little to no content. I'v been through many heated discussions lately through my mistakes or just too aggressive towards other editors over little simple edits. This time it's an obvious mistake I made, and I should have consulted with you and the creator of the article. My apologies and have a Merry Christmas! Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Did I really bite?[edit]

Hello. Regarding your comment at the history of Coronary artery disease treatment in ayurveda, I'm not sure I bit anyone (let alone so hard as to justify mentioning God). Given that it was the first time I've used the speedy deletion option (not being the most experienced of users myself), can you please explain what my mistake has been? I admit it did not cross my mind that the user's intention was to create an article instead of a template. Was I supposed to? (Please check my notice on that user's talk page first.) Thanks! NikosGouliaros (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, you should have thought of that; and, even if your assumption was correct, the appropriate action would have been to transfer the faux-template to draftspace, because stashing text an editor is working on is hardly something we discourage here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Non-free images at Eleanor Hibbert[edit]

FYI: Talk:Eleanor Hibbert#Non-free images. Huon (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Brian Jerome (footballer)[edit]

Hi there. I'm considering proposing speedy deletion of Brian Jerome (footballer) again; last time I did this, you removed the template with the comment "article includes a credible claim of significance, which is a lower standard than notability". I'm not entirely familiar with the policies for speedy deletion, but I dispute that this player (if he even exists) is significant: he has never played a match for a professional team and there's no mention of him on the Oxford United official website, and no hits on Google except relating to this article. As such he surely fails WP:NFOOTBALL. All substantive edits to the article are by the same user, Derrypardons, who has not edited any other article and did not respond to a note on his talk page about this. The first version of the article had a Soccerbase reference that referred to a completely different player (Junior Brown). I'm not convinced this Brian Jerome even exists, and even if he does he's surely not significant (whatever that means). No other youth player at Oxford has an article, unless they've played for the first team in a competitive match. Dave.Dunford (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

So BLP-PROD the article; it doesn't sound like an obvious enough hoax to speedy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks – it seems someone else has already done it, albeit on slightly different grounds. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi[edit]

Hey HW, when you made this edit and left the Edit summary "inaccurate", we're you saying that the content added is or is not accurate? When I saw it, but did not see a new source added and without an edit summary, I rejected it as a Special:PendingChanges list item for review. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I said, plain as day, you were inaccurate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... OK, so you are claiming that the content is supported by a source? I guess I'll go check that. I guess it also goes without saying that you don't consider that statement "spam" or "trivia" or "fan cruft" then. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you restrict your inferences to what I say rather than comments about what I didn't say, although why you would suggest that statements in articles about a Daesh terrorist are "fan cruft" is weirdly disturbing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you stated what you meant in a clearer manner, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for what does or does not disturb you, I know you have some biases, but I'm trying harder to not judge so harshly of late. In the future, I'll note that you draw a distinction between porn stars and terrorists when it comes to their BLP articles and what you consider acceptable content. It just seems strange that you think porn stars are less worthy of "humanizing". You also used to have more consistency, but its good to see that you're fallible after all... :) Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You two certainly make a great couple. Can I make an observation or two? I'll try to be fair. This source has the Messi thing, so it's not unsourced. I'm not sure why you didn't see that Scalhotrod, unless it is because, and this is certainly possible, there is SO much text with that one reference all the way at the end. If that's the case, that's fine--it's over now. Hullabaloo, I do agree that "inaccurate" is really not helpful; I suppose you meant it to mean "yes it is in the source, duh". Please do us all a favor next time and be overexplicit, OK?

Both of you are valued contributors. You've been here some time. You have experience. We need you around. So please keep it together and make that extra step. Please. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You may seem him as a valued contributor; I view him as a guy who trolls and harasses editors he's in content disputes with. I've been one of Chrris's favorite targets since I raised issues involving his COI, promotional, and copyvio editing nearly two years ago. I can't see a guy who's egged on trolls like "Carriearchdale" and Benjiboi socks in efforts to harassment, who's endorsed "appalling" bad faith accusations of racism in an AFD discussion, and who has made groundless personal attacks like this in edit summaries [14], and who's just come off a lengthy topic ban for similar misbehavior as someone who should be valued. This [15] is a typical example of attempting to dialog with Chris when he's in trolling mode, as he usually is with me, and I'm not going to waste time cater to his unreasonable and disruptive preferences. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, how about this: you write better and more accurate edit summaries to appease the poor schmucks who sometimes attempt to make peace between editors in order to let this joint run more smoothly? Drmies (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that Scalhotrod has just gone out of his way to insult me as "inane" and "biased" here [16], where he also claims that my reference to the AFD for the CAVR Award was so vague he couldn't find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAVR Award, I don't think the supposed defects in my edit summary had anything to do with his response. A week or so ago, he attacked my removal of unsourced claims that named living people were involved with human-animal porn as BLP zealotry, which is hardly a claim a reasonable, good faith editor would make. If you want to keep the peace, cracking down on editors who go out of their way to break it would be a better starting point than let the wookkiee win has been. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of belaboring the point, I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about me. Your edit summary was lousy, and that's all there is to it; no amount of stewing over your opponent's shortcomings is going to change that, and all I'm asking, sweet Jesus!, is that you be more clear next time. That's all, and now I am going to sign off and stay away. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Commando_Jeep page[edit]

A piece of commercial fluff about slapping a few boxes on a ruralized soccer-mom transporter. What, exactly, is there to keep here, and why would it be notable even if it were true? And why, even if it were notable, would it be worth devoting so many words to it? I say it's spinach, and I say to hell with it.Anmccaff (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And none of that justifies bypassing the standard deletion process, especially since you clearly acknowledge that the primary issue is notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I'd say a bigger issue is that it is so factually inaccurate and fluff-ridden that, if cleaned up, it would not even make a decent stub. Go through and mentally blue-pencil the lies and the sales puffery ("...but I repeat myself.") Then add that it is a one-off editor who has linked it to every possible connection he can imagine. If that ain't deletable, what is?Anmccaff (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


I'm aware of the disruptive editing from the other party. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 19 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Please stop personal attack [17][18] and respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith. You do not understand something in my action? You can ask.

  • why I created a notification of SPI? Because user Раціональне анархіст aka Pax and Redban and its sockpuppets has very similar behavior, on several levels. Not just me this noticed. SPI came out well, because the sockpuppet of Redban caught.
  • why drew attention to the topic ban? because (still) I think that topic ban has been broken, topic ban is "about or related to pornography", this page AfD is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. For me is simple: "about or related to pornography" and AfD about pornographic actor, so.

Subtropical-man talk
19:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't made any personal attacks or assumed bad faith where none was in evidence. You, on the other hand, have. Pax 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Shane Diesel deletion review[edit]

An article whose AfD you recently participated in has been restored pending deletion review. Pax 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)