User talk:Hanswar32

Hanswar32, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Hanswar32! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Disputed notability of awards

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Caution for adding non-notable purely promotional "awards" to multiple articles about pornstars, awards whose sole purpose is to draw attention to the companies sponsoring them. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't added any promotional material to wikipedia. The awards I added are all properly and independently sourced by notable magazines including AVN which is a leader in the porn industry. This caution is baseless as I'm unaffiliated to any company and gain nothing by sponsoring them. What is the criteria that should be followed in order to identify something as "non-notable purely promotional"? Hanswar32 (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes you have, the "awards" that you are edit-warring to get into multiple biographies about pornographic performers are utterly non-notable and solely intended to draw the attention to the companies who sponsor them (see WP:Notability and WP:Notability (awards); also see WP:Indiscriminate for one of the things Wikipedia is not). Warnings have previously been issued to other editors, at least one IP-editor has been blocked, and several articles have been protected to keep the material out (as I'm sure you know...). So stop what you're doing. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As I’ve previously stated, I have no affiliation to any company let alone porn companies so accusing me of having the sole intention of drawing attention or sponsoring them is an utter lie. With regards to notability, these awards are independent from the performer receiving them and are also covered by independent, non-trivial sources (AVN Magazine) which meet guidelines you’ve provided. With regards to indiscriminate collection of information policy, the encyclopedia value of such awards is subjective and its suitability for inclusion is the real issue being discussed (i.e., notability). I will repeat again that I haven’t added any promotional material to Wikipedia and just because you disagree with me over the value of inclusion/notability of such awards doesn’t make your accusation true. It’s one thing to discuss whether such awards meet guidelines of inclusion and another thing to have to defend myself from being a promotional company sponsor. So stop what you’re doing and assume good faith. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the user adding it is affiliated to the company or not, if the awards by their nature and names are purely promotional, and non-notable, repeatedly adding them to multiple articles is promotional spamming. And being covered in AVN-magazine, a magazine by and for the porn business, doesn't automatically make an award notable (see WP:Notability (awards)). So the warning stands. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I care more about the articles being edited (and the information being unfairly removed) then I do about a baseless warning from an editor who disagrees with me. The issue all boils down to our differing views of what is “purely promotional and non-notable” from which your “warning” originates from. I’ve had a look through WP:Notability (awards) and presented my argument above (which is not limited to it only being sourced by AVN-magazine) for why I believe such awards are notable enough for inclusion. Hanswar32 (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Hanswar32 and welcome to WP. You are obviously a WP:Good faith editor, but could you please stop edit warring over the inclusion of awards in articles? You are jeopardizing these articles and your edits have already led to the semi-protection of many of them. And this is coming from someone who actually agrees with you and is in favor of including these awards in articles. Just stop it please. It's just not worth it. It's an uphill battle that I am not willing to fight. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca1990. I just find it ridiculous (I'm glad you agree with me) that such awards are considered spam or irrelevant when they actually add value to the article by displaying various achievements. The ones jeopardizing these articles are editors who semi-protect and remove such awards, not us who try to make the article better by adding to its value. As far as I'm aware, these awards meet notability guidelines and are recognized and documented by industry leaders such as AVN. Who is to be trusted more? The opinion of anonymous Wikipedians or the independent leader of the industry in question? In any case, thanks for your message and I appreciate your attempt in resolving this dispute. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Only notable awards should ever be added to an article. The easiest way to define "notable" in this case is by checking to see if they have a well-written, long-established Wikipedia article about that award. If not, do not ever add it to an article - because THAT is spam. ES&L 12:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of a "notable" award is what's wrong. CAVR award, NightMoves Adult Entertainment Award, and Golden G-String are 3 such awards which are allowed on all Wikipedia articles without dispute and none of them have a "well-written, long-established Wikipedia article" about them. Are they now considered spam? If so, how have they been added on every single article for which they have recipients without being removed? Wikipedia should never be a source or measuring stick of notability of awards to be included on Wikipedia in any case since that's just non-sense. Hanswar32 (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No - it's not my definition; it's Wikipedia's definition. And you personally agreed to the policies and rules when you first created an account. So, live by what you agreed to ... and also live by the agreement that you made that led to your unblocking. Any-reinsertion of a single non-notable award will most definitely result in a new block - and the next may be indefinite ES&L 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it’s Wikipedia’s definition and not yours makes the situation even worse. The point I’m making still stands with the 3 examples of awards I provided that each do not have Wikipedia articles of their own. Where did I ever say that I intend to break or not live by Wikipedia’s policies and rules? All I’m saying is that I disagree with that definition and provided 3 clear examples where this “policy/rule” is being broken without anyone taking action, so why the double-standard? I never contended that inserting non-notable awards will lead to a block, my contention has always been that these awards are legitimate enough according to Wikipedia’s standards and practices that occur in reality. Hanswar32 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Hanswar32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me. However it takes two to edit-war and I'm confused as to why I would be blocked alone while User:Thomas.W, the editor whom I'm disputing with (and is just as guilty of edit warring), is not blocked? In light of this, I would appreciate having my block lifted so that I may seek to resolve the dispute through the methods provided and hopefully someone can be kind enough to explain how in an edit war, only one side would be blocked if there is no right or wrong in such circumstances. Thank you. Hanswar32 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Thank you for indicating your understanding of the policies. Good luck with dispute resolution. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to lift your block on your assertion that you will stop, but I want to make sure that you realize that you are not blocked simply for your dispute with User:Thomas.W - you have reverted multiple users across a number of articles, for instance with edits such as this and this. If you confirm your understanding of that and your willingness to talk out the problem rather than simply reverting others, I have no problem with restoring your ability to edit to get on with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand. Hanswar32 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You should be ready to go. I've unblocked you and checked to be sure that there is no "autoblock" on your account. There should not be. If you encounter any lingering block issues, please just say so, and we'll work it out. Dispute resolution can take patience and time but in the long run is much better for Wikipedia. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please allow me to politely add to MRG's comments: we also have a concept of WP:NOTTHEM - in the future, your unblock must only focus on your behaviour. As noted, you cannot compare apples to oranges - your block was related to more than just your behavior on the article - it's quite plausible that the other editor was in a different situation, so you can never compare your block to the non-block of another editor. Not trying to make you angry, just trying to provide some additional context/knowledge - I expect that they'll be no further blocks anyway :-) ES&L 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I was only looking for clarification when I mentioned the other editor. No reason to be angry at all :-) Hanswar32 (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

How to appropriately resolve disputes

As the notice above indicates, you've been temporarily blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

What to do instead:

• Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
• Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
• If that does not rectify the issue, there are many methods of dispute resolution on Wikipedia that can be used as needed.

In a collaborative encyclopedia, disagreements are bound to rise over article content. It does no one any good - not our editors, nor our readers - when these disagreements are fought through the articles themselves. In order for Wikipedia to work, we must work them out collegially, drawing where necessary upon the wider community to help resolve stalemates. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Not broken

Just as an FYI, I thought I'd point out that making edits to point links directly to an article instead of one of its redirects is seen as unnecessary per WP:NOTBROKEN. Dismas|^(talk) 21:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I kind of figured that it was unnecessary but my attitude up until now was that such a practice was making Wikipedia better by getting rid of redirects in favor of direct-linking. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Twistys.com

DO you think the creation of this article is a lost cause or that it might have a chance some day? Now that the founder of Freeones.com has been inducted into the AVN Hall of Fame, I think we have a decent chance with that one. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless it passes the Wikipedia criteria for articles of that nature, it'll very likely eventually be deleted. Hanswar32 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral notice to someone who has edited Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

CAVR

Hey Hans, there was a discussion and some debate about this on the Project Talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography/Archive_7#CAVR_Award_based_content_deletions recently. Morbidthoughts and I had further discussion about it User_talk:Morbidthoughts#CAVR. Granted, I'm trusting MT's knowledge and opinion over HW's inane biases, but the CAVR awards seem little more than one guys hobby than any kind of industry worthy "product evaluation". I thought I was making a decent stance for it based on the reported proliferation of reviews, but apparently he had some known biases in how and what he reviewed. As for the "(inter alia) an AFD concluding unanimously that the 'award' failed the GNG", I have no idea what HW was talking about and he never substantiated it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Scal for bringing this to my attention. I was unaware of these recent discussions and for the most part agree with the input made by Rebecca1990. Hanswar32 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanswar32, if you say you agree with my input on this, how come you're edit warring with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz over CAVR award NOMINATIONS when I said we should only include WINS? I have Ashley Long on my watchlist and I've seen you two edit warring over her CAVR nomination. I think we should only include actual wins for CAVR or any other award. The only nominations that should be in articles are AVN, XBIZ, XRCO, and other notable awards. If we were to add every single nomination that can be found to articles, the awards and nominations sections for popular porn stars or porn stars with long-lasting careers would be illegible. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'm in favor of keeping "WINS" too. So if we're going to do this, we need to do it right. @Rebecca1990:, @Guy1890:

1. Ask Malik or another Admin to userfy the deleted CAVR article from 4 years (sheesh?!) ago Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CAVR_Award
2. Then, assuming they aren't identical, port over the content from the french language article, [1]
3. Upgrade and flesh out the article as best we can

I would say that we should include the critique of the award, properly tag the Talk page, and post Editor notes that ONLY wins should be included in Bio articles. Make sense? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• This a huge waste of time. These awards (nominations or not) were found to be non-notable a long while ago. No article is going to be kept at AfD on Wikipedia due to a person winning a non-notable award. Trying to re-generate a long-deleted article about an award that is literally dead & buried is just going to cause an unnecessary ruckus. Guy1890 (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

As irritating as Hullaballoo can be sometimes, his "unwelcome trolling" and "more trolling" edit summaries on his talk page crack me up :). Thanks for your input Guy1890 and your suggestion Scalhotrod. @Rebecca1990: I said that I agreed with you for the most part and those edits in Ashley Long's article were made prior to reading your middle-ground opinion. I obviously recognize that if we were to add every single nomination that can be found to articles, that this would clutter many articles and I never intended to do that. If you'll notice, all of Ashley Long's wins and nominations in her relatively short career have been accounted for and so completing it, imo, is of encyclopedic value. Missy Monroe's article follows the same rationale, and nowhere have I attempted such non-sense of adding every single nomination for every single award available to every single pornstar article in existence. In fact, I haven't made a single edit to an article since reading your opinion. In the interest of finding a balanced approach to appease both sides, I'll let the nominations go for now but following this post I intend to restore the CAVR award wins in Stormy Daniels' article and any other article for which a win of this award exists and if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you's...

For all the good it did, but thank you to you. I started a discussion about it on Guy's page and did not invite many others for fear of being accused of canvassing. But frankly, I don't see the issue with the sourced inclusion of "wins" to articles for performers where the notability is already clearly established. We've already beaten to death (and beyond) the issue of which awards are Notable or not, but eliminating mention of them is just plain ignorant. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Rise Awards

Skimming this talk page, you should know by now that primary sources in WP:BLPs without additional independent sources should be removed. Further, adding links to websites of what appear to be non-notable awards looks like promotion and spamming.

Do you think these awards are notable? Can you please provide additional sources for all your Rise-award edits? --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ronz, your application of WP:BLPPRIMARY seems misguided when the information is about the actual win of an award, not any other commentary. Sources like this are perfectly acceptable in BLP articles for athletes and other statistics. No one questions the results of the various levels of NASCAR races.

How is statistical content stating that someone has won an award promotional or spamming? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the weird reduction of the purported award to "statistical content", the basic argument is plainly wrong. I could devise my own statistic measuring the performance of NFL quarterbacks, add the Wolfowitz Index to the infoboxes of starting NFL quarterbacks, and award various Wolfo! Awards to quarterbacks for topping the Index and/or components I selected. And cite all of these to my (imaginary) sports blog, with the intent of driving traffic to it. There's no difference between doing this and creating one's own porn awards, inventing one's own criteria for selecting winners, and spamming Wikipedia with the "results". You can pay a "processing fee" to have your self-published book entered into an "award" competition (and, unsurprisingly win one of the many, many awards handed out), but nobody thinks such things belong in a Wikipedia article (except lowlife publicists and marketers). There's no Wikipedia policy or guideline saying that anything styled an award is inherently noteworthy enough to belong in related Wikipedia articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd seriously love to win a Wolfo Award (2015 Wolfo Hall of Fame Inductee). Joking aside, and this may come as a surprise to you, but in principle, I do agree with your reasoning. However, the threshold of award notability for pornographic actresses is unlike other comparisons which is the main point of difference. Hanswar32 (talk) 05:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring the problem and policy.

No, they don't belong, and it is nothing like statistics for athletes. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, instead of skimming my talk page, all you had to do to arrive at an answer to your irrelevant question of "do you think these awards are notable?" was read Scalhotrod's post immediately above yours. The issue is of sourced inclusion of these awards. I fail to see any clear distinction as illustrated by Scalhotrod's analogy between these type of sources being acceptable to use for other statistics (e.g., athletes) and being used for awards. Please elaborate on how "it is nothing like...". In any case, a secondary source does exist and has been included in the article you reverted. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the burden is on you this being a BLP. Given your having been blocked multiple times for similar editing, I'd hoped for a much stronger understanding of the policies...

Anyone can give an award, and awards are a means of promotion for the awarder as much as the awardee.

You replaced a primary source with a press release. Do you recognize a press release when you see one and do you understand why it's no improvement? --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ronz:, I asked you to clarify a position you put forth, so the burden is on me to do what exactly? You're disappointed at my alleged lack of understanding of the "policies" yet expose your own foolishness by erroneously stating that I've been blocked multiple times indicating you're simply an editor who likes to talk without double-checking facts. I'd hoped to respond to an editor with a much stronger ability to review a statement/insinuation before putting them forth, but you deal with what you get. Scalhotrod's point with the athlete analogy is that once an award has been won, simply reporting/stating that this event occurred is a fact no different than a statistic. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't like my explanation. Did you not understand, do you not agree, or are you just ignoring it? I can't tell at this point given your reply. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think we are earnestly trying to understand your interpretation of the Policy you are applying. Aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, do you have a basis for your assertion? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Which policy shall we start with? --Ronz (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditto Kelly Madison and Tanya Tate. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronz, that's not communication, what we're assuming good faith and attempting to do with you, its just avoiding the topic. Others have taken this approach and not faired well at WP:ANI. So, please, explain the basis of your assertion. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You recall once again that there's a discussion going on? Great. I hope we will not see any more of reverts where your edit summary indicates otherwise [2] [3], all while overlooking BLP.

I don't understand how a press release [4] is anything other than promotional, violating NOT, BLP, and OR. Please explain this exception to our policies. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not an exception, it an understanding or comprehension. In this particular case, the press release is listing the results of an event that happened in the past similar to the one you used here[5]. Not unlike press releases that have been cited in order to credit wins for the Academy Awards, the Grammies, and any number of other award programs including sports, literature, scientific achievement, and so on. Porn articles are by no means alone in the use of Press Releases as a source of information in this project. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an exception to our policies, which is what matters at this point.

So now to repeat myself, from the start of this discussion, "Do you think these awards are notable?" Of course, I wasn't just asking about personal opinions, but was making the case to follow our policies and include secondary, independent, reliable sources to demonstrate such. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So what policy-based objection do you or anyone else have to removal of all the remaining rabbitsreviews.com links and associated content? --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If there are none, I'll be removing them. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing the links and associated content. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What policy-based objection do you or anyone else have to removal of all mention of RISE awards, since no independent, secondary sources have been provided demonstrating they are worth noting? --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

At it again...

Hey Hans, Ronz is at it again and specifically targeting your edits on the RISE awards[6]. I thought we had cleared this up, but this User has an axe to grind or is maybe anti-Canadian. I don't know, but its getting very WP:POINTy and tendentious. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just trying to apply policy? Ever consider that? --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hanswar32_reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_.29. Note that I noticed your apparent change in behavior recently. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to continue the discussion you started on my talk page, please do so here. I think it best if you just took a short break instead. --Ronz (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC) (refactored --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC))

I have no interest in continuing any interaction with you, it's you who's obsessed with me and a break is surely to benefit you more than me, but thanks for the suggestion anyways. I'll simply post the warning/discussion [7] and the two diffs you reverted on your talkpage [8] [9] to complete the linked discussion. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have refactored once I deleted the section. --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

As for my message to Moonriddengirl, it might have been better to notify you. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail

Any chance you'd turn on being able to receive email? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 13:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)