User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Merle Temkin

I saw that you removed four images from the Merle Temkin page. Not sure why, as they are images of specific works of art that I believe I uploaded with the correct fair use rationales, labeling, permission, etc. I would appreciate the change being undone or an explanation of what I did incorrectly.Mianvar1 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Tina Louise Thomas

Noticed you had to remove an album cover as non-free. I uploaded a scan and added fair use rationale. I'd appreciate it if you could check and tag the rationale. Thanks! Sauoq (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Absent unusual circumstances, which aren't present here, nonfree album covers cannot be used to illustrate discographies or musician bios. See Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 November 26#File:Knowledge & Innocence.jpg for the most recent of many discussions. The use violates WP:NFCC and has been removed from the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nadia Ali (actress)

Why do you keep on removing her Pakistani descent category? This is like the second time. --113.203.160.227 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• You should discuss this on the talk page, instead of edit warring. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Liddy Quote on ATF Documented by Numerous Media Sources

Hi Wolfowitz, can you please cite the basis on which Liddy's famous quote about the ATF was removed? A citation was included and it was obviously a significant quote on his part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.166.182 (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No explanation by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.166.182 (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you deleted a book cover from an entry about me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Gordon_%28historian%29). I was perfectly happy to have that book cover, the copyright of which I own, on the entry. I can't seem to undo your edit.

Ianlgordon (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to put something on the At the Mountains of Madness page. What do you need to let me do that or is it not changeable? The story I'm mentioning is real and the author is an author. Do you need fame to get on Wiki? Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombwurm (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Replaceable fair use File:Photo of James Wesely, Rawles.jpg

In addition to the long-standing Share-Alike notice, clarification has been added at the page where that photo is housed (https://survivalblog.com/media/ ) The note at the top of that page now clearly states: All of these files are intended for free use in book catalogs, book reviews, wiki pages, et cetera. They also qualify as “free” images per Wikipedia:Non-free_content)" I trust that this resolves this issue. Thank you for your many selfless hours of service to the WP community. James Wesley, Rawles (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Nikki Phoenix Hi Wolfowitz, I noticed that you removed a large number of items from this page. As I took a long break from Wikipedia because of repeated vandalism and edit warring with other editors you had issues with as well, I would in the spirit of the principles of Wikipedia ask for you to do the simple following: If you find a particular item that you think requires better/more sourcing, simply leave a note on my page with a link to it and I will. That saves me having to watch the page for your deletions, and put the item back up after you list something negative, that I will just find a better source link to anyways. That way we can work together to make Wikipedia a better place. I'm rather tired of seeing repeated edits that list rude comments where the editor in question decided it was too much work to actually do the research themselves and replace the links with something better.

also, regarding your deletion of Nikki Phoenix's pic, she emailed me this pic in response which I posted on her Picture page as well:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nikki_Phoenix_settles_copyright_issue.jpg

Big thank you to Phoenix for a quick email response holding a statement and pointing to her own picture to help settle this in short order. On another note, it is pretty obvious by looking at the actual Cover for "My Addiction" which is colorized and looks nothing like the posted pic, that is was not "Stolen from a Album cover" as you assert.

Again, in the future, please just leave a polite note on my talk page for anything you might need my help with and I will do the same. I would like to have a positive relationship with everyone here on Wikipedia, including you and if there is anything I can ever do for you please do not hesitate to reach out to me and I will help you in any way I can.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Art javier (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shyla Jennings

Rather than get in a tit for tat ping pong match I thought it might be more productive to explain here. I hope so.

As to that subject of the article, Shyla Jennings is basically an American adult star that happened to be born in Germany by a quirk of chance...her parents were living there because her father was stationed in Germany at the time. If John McEnroe's wikipedia entry only stated that he was "a German born" tennis star with no context referencing his actual citizenship status or how he came to be born in Germany would that not be a perfectly legitimate reason for contextualizing his birth? Same with "Italian born actress" Amy Adams?

Moreover, it is not a spam attempt. I have no affiliation with the cited website whatsoever. Secondly, yes it is a commercial website as are a majority of perfectly viable media sources. It's highly presumptive to conclude a wiki contribution is Spam simply because the source is a commercial one. Particularly when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the information was added. Otherwise all newspaper, media, and most websites would not be permitted as sources. Keep in mind the source I am citing is a direct video interview with the subject of the article and thus adheres to BLP standards. The proprietor or employees of said commercial site are highly unlikely to go to the trouble of adding a citation on a wikipedia entry to a seven year old interview on a secondary page on their website, then engage a conflict dispute over the edits, and post comments to editors pages. Please use common sense. CioranKM (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC) CioranMK

I can see that you have reverted a lot of my edits pertaining to the Hollywood actresses. I have provided enough reason and cited the sources and not sure why you have done that. How can it be unsupported if I am quoting one of the largest newspapers. Please check the facts before you remove.

Further the information I shared has pertinence to their personal beliefs and opinions that endorse their faith in a religion. Hnaluru (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove fact that she was in MOVIE....

Stefanie played Calamity Jane in Bonanza the Series, Season 5, Episode 7 Calamity Over the Comstock Released November 3rd(1963).[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisconsingary (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sam Cooke (model): she's dating Chris Smalling. Don't remove fact. Are you jealous or something? check your facts before you edit something. Can't believe this actually needs to be explained. Tsk tsk.

hello i need help

please get back to me when u get this58.106.70.43 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this Hullalloo Wolfowitz? The Wiki page about various permissions for privately owned (non public domain) photos is confusing. The photo for the Wikipedia page for Calvin C.J. Sia has been used by various publications of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Hawaii Academybof Pediatrics and is not copyrighted. Sia has permitted this photo to be used by Wikipedia and the background coding for the image nakes this clear. Why isn't the photo permitted and if it can't be used, what can Sia do to give it to Wikipedia or make it part of the public domain? I need to understand why the photo, which is not copyrighted, can't be used onbthe Wikipedia pagenwith the owner's permission. Thanks in advance for clarifying this. Airsick656 (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the bad thumb typing on my tablet, but I'm hoping to get a reply from Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. Airsick656 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia-only permission is not sufficient to allow the use of a nonfree image. Under current US law, everything published since the late 1980s is under copyright unless its author(s)/creator(s) waive their rights. Wikimedia Foundation policy does not allow the use of nonfree images which may plausibly be replaced by free images, and, except in very limited cases which cannot apply here, classifies all nonfree images of living persons as replaceable. For this image to be used, the copyright holder must contact WP:OTRS and provide a full release (which allows, among other things, unlimited third-party use). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Brooklyn Lee

Can you not? I am working on a new project, and updated my page to reflect this. No spamming involved. K, thanks.

That's pretty much the paradigm of spamming. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you figure? I uploaded current photographs to replace the former, outdated, and included information about a new project. All relevant. All Factual. On what planet is one prohibited from doing such to their own page?Vforvampist (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, then if it makes your willy tingle, I'll remove the information about my current work (which IS relevant). The photos, however, are the most current that exist anywhere on the internet, so you are undermining the up-to-date status of the page by continuing to undo it. Also, please get a life. Vforvampist (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop. You are intentionally removing up-to-date files/information. Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at BrooklynLee. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to BrooklynLee, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at BrooklynLee.

Melissa Ashley

hey dude, why are you removing my productive edits on her page. i discussed her activism in preventing overzealous porn prosecution in conservative districts. i documents it with bona fide sources - legitimate newspapers such as the Guardian, and US court documents, which are both public records and highly reliable and verifiable. This is a demonstration of her notability; she is well known as an activist in this regard. her notability had been in dispute, and this addressed that issue

so... why are you interfering with documenting that activism? i will revert your edits removing this unless you cna explain why this information should not be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.99.125 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Andra Day

Hello. I am the editor for the page Andra Day (Singer). I just wanted to say that I truly appreciate your sound, intelligent response to Fiddle Faddle. I won't even state how or why I disagreed with both that editor's comments and TONE, because you hit all the nails on their heads. Thank you, and regardless if our page works out, I hope you stick around as an editor. You are doing right by us this time, and I can only imagine you do just as right by others. Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by An108 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not bad faith

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 and 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

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

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 [2] [3] and one editor whose current DRV proposals I've opposed [4]. 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!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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 [5] 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 [6]. You were first asked over four years ago [7]. 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 [8]; a venomous troll bent on defaming an article subject was allowed to continue [9] so long as the only editor she harassed was Wolfowitz [10] [11][12]. 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}} ^{(e • t • c)} 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.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 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

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)

FYI

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

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

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

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. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balin42632003 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 2014 December 19 (UTC)

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,[13], 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 [14] -- 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!

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 LOTUS • TALK 18:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Thanks

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)

Thanks!

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

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)

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?

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)

Seasonal Greets!

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

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

Brian Jerome (footballer)

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

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 [15], and who's just come off a lengthy topic ban for similar misbehavior as someone who should be valued. This [16] 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 [17], 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

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)

Donetsk

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

Reference Errors on 19 January

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

• On the Valerie Solanas page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

Please stop personal attack [18][19] 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
(en-2) 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

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

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, thanks for your sensible keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Disaster. I have instigated a speedy keep and incorporated the reviews in The Last Disaster article. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

rabbitsreviews.com

I see you removed a number of links to rabbitsreviews.com, and it looks like most have been restored and more added since. I started a discussion with Hanswar32, and Scalhotrod jumped in right away. Is there past discussion on this or similar problems? --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And he's back. Let's get this settled. These long-term edit-wars in BLPs shouldn't be happening. --Ronz (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wizkid (musician)

I reverted your edit to the Wizkid (musician) article because it didn't make sense. You can't say "no current source" when the section is well sourced. If you have a problem with the section, take it to the noticeboards. You can't removed sections on Wikipedia without consensus. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Cytherea

Since edit summaries seem to be going out of vogue, could you explain why you removed the rape info from the Cytherea article? Dismas|^(talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Because the content had already been disputed by another user, apparently under BLP, then restored without discussion by an IP-SPA; because the sourcing really doesn't satisfy BLP requirements; and because the curious selection of references appeared designed to ridicule/embarrass a third party with only a tenuous connection to the article subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Dismas|^(talk) 19:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Concern about revert edit summary

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz! I'm helping User:Swartzcr learn more about how to edit Wikipedia as part of an Art and Feminism edit-a-thon today, and I saw that you reverted several of their edits with the summary "dubious sourcing and lousy writing". That's an unfortunately insulting and potentially discouraging edit summary, especially for good-faith edits by a person who is relatively inexperienced (as you can check from their contributions history); please be more neutral and polite when describing problems with another person's work. It would also be helpful for the quality of this article to point out the problems more specifically - which sentences in those edits do you think need work? Which references need to be improved? Thank you. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

on Valerie Solanas

Your recent editing history at [[:You reverted my edits on January 19 and then within 12 days, 1 hour and 40 minutes, and 14 hours and 29 minutes. Although no 3 of your reverts were within a 24-hour period, that seems to have been only because I'm not editing Wikipedia long enough in a single day. The article's talk page or topic, I think, addresses every issue you have raised or touched on and the talk page shows the consensus already reached. Please respond there for each point on which you disagree and wish to reopen consensus. Simply repeating charges that have already been refuted is not helpful. The content being deleted from the article is not only due weight, it is notable; and, in either case, is thus reportable in Wikipedia. Editing that preserves the essential content is welcome but I don't know what that editing would be, so please propose it and/or edit accordingly. At least, edit selectively; you've never explained why you think the gun having been purchased (which is sourced) should be described in the lead as only having been acquired (a weasel word) and regarding your most recent edit you did not explain your opposition to the recent minor correction of spacing nor acknowledge that I am not an SPA or have a COI even though I think we resolved that issue long ago and I'm the one who wrote most of the content in question. Please participate in discussion. Thank you very kindly.]] shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Nina Mercedez

I have no idea how this article wound up on my watchlist, but could you explain what or who 'the bucket' is? --Onorem (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Interaction ban request. Thank you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Booknewsun.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Booknewsun.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Here we go again.... Thank you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you at AN/EW

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hanswar32_reported_by_User:Ronz_.28Result:_.29. It looks like he may be changing his behavior, but the reverting needs to stop. --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it a very bad idea to edit-war when your name has been brought up in an open ANEW discussion. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sent you an email. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

For some reason you keep deleting my personal life at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Smith_(musician) Please explain the problem here. These are all common knowledge and verifiable facts.

[redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2201:1E00:DC5B:10DD:7EC7:4E24 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What part of "wholly unsourced" is in any way unclear? Read WP:BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable awards in pornography articles

There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Mention_of_non-notable_awards_in_articles. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles.

Since you've been working on this for such a long time, your perspective will be especially helpful with defining our inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

Your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Since you haven't claimed your account, I'm removing your name from the list of Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account holders. You are welcome to reapply if you want access in the future. All the best, HazelAB (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Difference between webcam modeling and pornographic films

Why did you remove mentions of pre-porn webcam modeling from Lily Carter and Avy Scott? Webcam modeling and performing in pornographic films are not the same thing like you insinuated in these edit summaries. There are significant differences between the two. Webcam modeling shows are live and involve an actual interaction between the performer and the viewer, unlike a pornographic film. Also, webcam modeling shows do not have entries on IAFD or IMDB like actual pornographic films do. Audience size is another big difference. A webcam modeling show is viewed by a very small group of people and in some cases, only one person. A pornographic film has a much wider audience. They are simply not the same job. A porn star's career starts when they shoot their first pornographic film, not when they first appeared on a webcam, stripped, modeled nude, etc. "Before entering the pornographic industry, Carter was a webcam model" is an accurate and factual statement. Webcam modeling did not mark the beginning of her porn career, she did webcam modeling BEFORE porn. Please don't remove mentions of pre-porn webcam modeling from articles again. If your personal opinion is that there is no difference between the two, that's fine, just don't let it influence how you edit articles. You know, many people out there believe that there is no difference between a porn star and a prostitute, but WP doesn't let them go around replacing "pornographic actress" with "prostitute" in porn biographies. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Shut up and go away, paid editor. What you post has virtually no relationship to the edits you are absurdly objecting to. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan's image

There has been a conflict over the use of the infobox image in the Jamie Dornan page, I'm hoping that a vote to choose a preferred image would settle the dispute. I am therefore writing to those who have edited Jamie Dornan page to voice their opinion in the Jamie Dornan Talk page so we can reach a consensus. I would welcome your opinion. Hzh (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yo Sé Que Mentía DRV

Hi. I'm not sure I understand your objection to my close. I restored the article (with the full history) to draft space. Anybody can now work on it there and (almost) anybody can move it back to main article space. That seems like it's very close to what you're asking for, and bypasses a week's worth of debate. Is this a bad thing? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The article wasn't eligible for A7 to begin with -- TV shows aren't eligible for A7. The article should have been restored on the initial request. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you're making such a fuss about this. You could have just fixed up the draft and restored it to main article space yourself. But, whatever, I've backed out my DRV close. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Actress bios

I noticed you removed some information from a string of articles today with the edit summary "inaccurately ascribed to CNBC, opinion of NN blogger/stringer not employed by CNBC". As far as I can tell Chris Morris is employed by CNBC [20][21], albeit in a freelance capacity. Am I missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Mprris is not an employee of CNBC, but an independent writer. He is not listed on the relevant CNBC staff pages, and identifies himself as freelance/independent on his own home page. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracie Glam, which sums it up and, so far as I know, has stood undisputed. His relationship with CNBC could be analogized to that of a syndicated columnist, whose opinions would not be attributed to a newspaper than published them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that pointer. I'll go read that AfD now. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Move protection

The protection is there to halt a move war, not to promote the protected edition. Except where there is an obvious violation of policy, there is no obligation for the protecting admin to revert a page to its state before an edit war. The protection will automatically expire on 7 June, after which editors (or a closing admin upon request) are free to enact the outcome of the discussion. Deryck C. 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

The above notice isn't mine but I'm letting you know you are at 3 reverts on Casey Calvert too. I am disturbed by the original research you are carrying out with regards to degrees at University of Florida simply because the exact title of the major isn't used or given. If the OFFICIAL school paper informally refers to her degree concentration, this should not be a reason to disqualify as unreliable. This a ridiculous tact for you to take. Further if she says she named herself after a specific professor with that specific last name, she most probably did and just because you feel it's scandalous to his reputation is not a reason to outright remove the mention. You could have just removed his name! Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Aberwyvern castle

Aberwyvern castle has been prodded. The article has no footnotes but it contains significant content about this fictional castle in David Macaulay's award-winning book Castle, so I was going to suggest merging this into the book article, but then I saw that last year you had reverted such a redirect.[22] So before I went further I wanted to ask you the reasons for your objection and to see if you had another suggestion. Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Native American mascot controversy

Your critique of Native American mascot controversy would be appreciated. It appears very bloated and not per Wikipedia guidelines to me, but the individual who claims to have contributed 80% of the content (and probably did) thinks otherwise and is resisting some needed trimming. A thoughtful analysis by an experienced and neutral editor or two may convince the contributor to trim the article or accept revisions by others.Sandcherry (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I agree I was overzealous on the speedy deletion notices. However, you also removed a large number of other flags-- both added by me and predating my edit-- which were very much necessary (notability, refimprove, etc.) I'll need to put those back in. If you'd like to assist, I am specifically targeting articles that have been flagged as orphans since 2009 or earlier. Interlaker (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Interlaker (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• HW, I suppose removing the speedy was valid, but the other tags were valid too. Interlaker, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Lee (reporter). Thanks to both, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, you're quite wrong about the tags. One claimed the article "relies too much on references to primary sources", which is dead wrong -- the tag was applied in 2007 and should have been removed in 2009 when the primary sourcing was removed. The other claimed the text was "written like a résumé", even though it was straightforward prose describing the article subject's major reporting jobs. Once again, the tag was initially applied years ago, the problem was resolved by subsequent editing, and the tag was obsolete. I'm certainly puzzled by this comment, and why you grudgingly "suppose removing the speedy was valid"; the rationale for the speedy was "because it has relied on primary sources sine 2007 and has been flagged as written like a resume since 2009", which bears no relationship to any valid criterion for speedy deletion, and would be inadequate grounds for standard deletion, not to mention the fact that the tags were plainly inaccurate. Interlaker spent a good deal of time yesterday placing uniformly invalid, out-of-process speedy tags on dozens of articles; I put a good deal of effort into cleaning up the mess Interlaker created, and you respond by hassling me over a quite minor point that on simple checking is seen to be demonstrably wrong. I know it's a hobby among one faction of the administrative corps to hassled The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but in matters like this it just damages the encyclopedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Wow. That's a complete misreading of the tone and content of my comment, but I wouldn't want to stand in the way of a good conspiracy. Have a great day. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, if you had a rational explanation for complaining about my removal of obsolete and clearly invalid tags, it would be nice if you provided it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
        • As far as the article on Jean Lee (reporter) goes, I disagree about your removal of the resume tag. However, I won't fight you on that. In order to clear up any confusion for anyone else, however, I took the step of removing any unsourced material from the article. Several lines of material had been flagged as lacking citations since 2008, and I was well within my rights to remove them. Again, I agree that I was overzealous with the speedy deletion notices. At the same time, I believe it pays off to err on the side of caution-- all it takes is one Jar'Edo Wens article to undermine Wikipedia far more than a few misplaced speedy deletion notices ever could. I've been editing since 2006 and it pains me to see "citation needed" flags that go back almost to when I started, without the unsourced information having been removed in the intervening time. At any rate, as I mentioned before I've been targeting older articles flagged as orphans. If you'd like to join me in removing unsourced material, and adding (or as the case may be sometimes, removing) flags, then I'll welcome your participation. Interlaker (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My talk page

Why isn't it allowed? How is it a violation? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Because our policy on nonfree content provides that nonfree content cannot be used outside articlespace. See WP:NFCC#9.

July 2015

Hello, I'm Seagull123. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Alyssa Miller without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Section blanking is not very helpful, even if it is "gossipmongering". Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  13:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to user draft: Thank you.

Thank you for your recent editing comment regarding your change to the draft template I've been working on. I'm still learning all the complexities and peculiarities of Wikipedia editing so your message about WP:NFCC and usage outside the article namespace was helpful. I had to spend some time sorting it out though because your edit was a deletion of File:MLmadridlogotipo.png which (according to what I found on the file page) isn't actually listed as NFCC. Assuming WP:GOODFAITH though, I did find some other changes to be made based on your comments so I'll be reverting and editing appropriate to your guidance. As far as I can tell, the proper WP:EQ (I'm still learning this too) is to provide appropriate notice here. Hope I'm doing this right. N8 21:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Kathy Hilton

Hi there, just wondered why you deleted the credits I added on Kathy's she did appear in those credits... And also the year she retired from acting was 1979 not 74 Cullen1987 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

John B. Thomas

FYI this article has already been deleted twice, which is why I tagged it so quickly. Still, if you want to give them another chance, that's fine. Agtx (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pablo Picasso. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing....Modernist (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This is as clear case of routine enforcement of WP:NFCC#1 as one could ask for, and your edit summary accusation of "VANDALISM" is hard to see as indicating that you are disputing this in good faith. Your interpretation of WP:NFCC#1 is Absolutely wrong...Modernist (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I'm sorry I didn't know Saturn star (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Hello. I'd like to discuss to you about the Michael Richards "Personal life" section. It appears that you have deleted the information concerning his relationship with Ann Talman because you claim it is gossip. I have created a section in regards to Ann Talman on the article's talk page and I'd like to invite you to join the discussion.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair use

I did not know that the cover image of the book may not be used in the portal. Can you guide me to the policy related to it? Mhhossein (talk) 13:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9, which generally prohibits the use of nonfree images outside articlespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

NFCC

I suggest you contact the uploader of the images that you find the material not "fair use" as each image is directly and specifically connected to the MITSFS. In fact, the first such image for Astounding was made by the MITSFS with the direct permission and encouragement of the magazine's publisher <g>. I tend to oppose indiscriminate "fair use" but suggest you graciously reconsider your opinion here, indeed. I was fortunate enough to have met Mr. Gernsback, who gave over $1,000 to the organization (IIRC he gave a Gestetner to the club - and later one of the Gestetners, as an MIT student, was a member as well). And I would love to have the alternating left and right placement restored - it makes the page look better even on iPhones. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Rockteem Bhattacharjee (Actor)‎

Please take a look at the Talk page of the article - there was a recent AfD and this repost has exactly the same issues.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:G4 more carefully. It states that G4 does not apply to a page "which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion". The action you cite was a prior speedy deletion, which supersedes the pending AFD. If the reason for the prior speedy deletion still applies, that tag should be applied -- not G4. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah so just for my clarification. The article was speedy deleted and the closed AfD reflected that rather than AfD consensus.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That's right on target. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Emeraude Toubia

Hello, this is a comment about this edit. I added those two sources (the gossip magazine People en Español and Billboard) because I was trying to establish notability for her (outside of her being a random beauty pageant contest in the United States and an actress on Spanish-language television shows and commercials). The user who started her Wikipedia article did not include *any* sources, and I had never heard of Emeraude Toubia before coming across her Wiki article, so I just googled and added all of the news articles that mentioned her name, including those two sources. Not for gossip purposes. Just fyi. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

BAMIL (Musician)

FYI: Re your decline of the G4 speedy: The nominator indeed failed to link to a previous AfD, but on the article talk page I had linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamil Gutierrez Collado, a more recent AfD (from 2014) than the one you had apparently found (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamil) from 2009. I don't know if this affects your assessment, but I wanted to be sure you had seen all of the relevant info. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's still not G4-eligible, because it includes a referenced claim of an award in 2015, which means it's not substantially identical to the deleted version for two reasons. I know it's hard to drive the stake through the heart of lousy articles like this, but it's often the case that standard deletion processes are required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, no worries there. But on further review, the article is a direct copypaste from his bio on his Reverbnation site, so I've tagged it as a copyvio. Yes, this type of thing is frustrating, but irrespective of the persistent efforts of the article creator(s), the guy isn't miles away from the notability standard, so I suppose we just have to be open to reassessment within reason. --Finngall ^talk 17:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Demi Lovato

In my recent edit, you said "Wikipedia is not a celebrity hookup history". Of course it is because I wrote it in her personal life part. I haven't add it back again because I think we need to talk about it first. (Bistymings (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Quest

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have just commented/recommended keep on the above afd. I appreciate the sentiments you gave in the discussion but hope my suggestion of a WP:TEA is okay.

Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you need more than a cup of tea. Maybe you should take a break; I'm worried about your stress level. Either way, I want to remind you that Wikipedia:Civility|civility]] is a part of Wikipedia's code of conduct. Maybe you're better at I am at finding references; maybe you're more patient with un-referenced material. But there's absolutely no reason to go ad homenim. Behavior like yours makes people shy about contributing to the encyclopedia, and that hurts everyone. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think not. Pointing out that you didn't bother to check Google Scholar in looking for sources on the work one of the most distinguished female authors of the twentieth century isn't an "ad homenim" (sic) attack; it's pointing out your failure to comply with WP:BEFORE and related aspects of deletion practice. And not for the first time. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Flying Saucers Are Real, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Summer King, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedi Quest, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Days, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector Prime. Nominating articles for deletion without making competent attempts to assess the subjects' notability is disruptive, and you should expect to be called out for doing it repeatedly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Other Worlds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kelvin Kent. 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) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you reverted my changes?

Hey! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Hope you are doing well, I request you kindly don't revert my edits into this Template:Sindh Uni Alumni , because it adds more beauty and relevance after adding a relevant image of the user box. I hope you better understand and will avoid such illogical reverts. Thanks.--Jogi don (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, which incorporate policy, strictly prohibit the display of nonfree images in templates, whatever the aesthetic value may be. Whenever you display a nonfree image outside articlespace, the use is automatically flagged for review and presumptive removal. As you've likely noticed by now, another user has already removed the noncompliant use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

speedy decline of Mariam gabunia

Hi Could you explain why it does not fit into the WP:A11. See : Talk:Mariam gabunia and User:Ketrin doulse. Thanks! Peppy Paneer (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Because A11 does not apply to real people, and I cannot fathom how anyone could think it does. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

haha...fine..I understood that it does not apply in this case Thank you...I read WP:A11 and Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance...but where is it explicitly mention that it does not apply for real people (king of Mars) ? Peppy Paneer (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Jumping in - that's because that's what WP:A7 is for. Garchy (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Garchy: ... Thank you...got it! Peppy Paneer (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Arun Honnedevasthana Shamrao

I hadn't seen the previous CSD, sorry for adding a second. I can see significance, but I don't think it will pass notability muster so I've added an XFD, in case you want to add your thoughts: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arun Honnedevasthana Shamrao Thanks! Garchy (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (P.S., I "thanked" you for your last edit on this talk page because I thought you had a perfect/funny reply about WP A11.)

Your edit on Lucio Battisti (album)

Hi, I'm writing to you because of your edit at Lucio Battisti (album). Thanks for the contribution but I think you should have discussed before making an edit that -if unnoticed- could have permanently destroyed somebody's else work. With that said, the article had a small part of "relevant commentary": it was exactly the part you removed - the audio files' captions, that contained the only bit of music-related information in the article. It is certainly little, but the entire article is a stub, and to me it's no surprise that a 2-line article (track listing apart) has a short commentary. The article will grow and so will the audio files commentary. Cheers, --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 10:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. The use rationale for each file stated "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style". Three of the five captions included no substantive commentary whatever, and therefore were not used consistently with their rationales. The other two captions included superficial, unsourced commentary which itself called for removal as original research; and the content was so insubstantial that they could not support use under NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free images on User Pages.

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: How does one determine that an image is "non-free", and should not be used on User Pages? Thanks. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that is the image file is hosted on Wikipedia Commons, it should be OK; if it's hosted elsewhere, it's probably not. When you look at the image's File page (which you reach by clicking on the image), the page will either say (in a line underneath the image) "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons" or "Non-free media information and use rationale". The former indicates the file is free (public domain or appropriately licensed for use); the latter indicates it isn't. A relatively small percentage of the off-Commons files are also free, and don't carry the "nonfree media information" line, but those need to be checked carefully. For book covers, the general rule is that pre-1923 covers are safe to use; later covers may not be. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Thank you so much, as I've long been confused on this score. That is really helpful information, and it was generous of you to take the time to so thoroughly explain it. Thanks again. --- Professor JR (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	In appreciation for your generous assistance with regard to the use of public domain, versus non-free, photo-images in Wikipedia. Much appreciated. Professor JR (talk) 09:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Ayub407's talk page.
Message added 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ayub407 (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Buck Adams

What's the blp violation here? It's not the name. He's dead, so the BLP issue can't be about him. I cannot find anything in the ref that's derogatory about anyone. I know and respect your work so I won't revert but I'm genuinely baffled. What am I missing? David in DC (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation with regard to the boxer, who appears to be a different, presumably living person with a similar, common name. The boxer is described as a resident of Corpus Christi, TX, the porn performer as a resident of CA. The porn star's bios generally state he was a boxer before entering porn in 1984, but that date is more or less the midpoint in the boxer's career. The boxer had bouts all over the US and even one in Italy, which I'd expect would have resulted in some hype about being nationally/internationally known, but I haven't even spotted one source not based on the Wikipedia article that even describes him as a "professional" boxer. There's at least one other boxer named Charles Allen who's a boxer in the same time frame, whose last fight is in 1983, which is a better fit, but he's described as based in Chicago. I just don't see enough evidence to connect that boxer with the porn performer, despite the similar names. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of magazines released by Marvel Comics in the 1970s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fumetti. 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) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

To clarify...

...I mean you should start a section saying why it is original research. I see sources, although I cannot immediately verify many of them. There are issues with the added text, but I don't think reverting them with one edit summary and without even notifying the user responsible for adding the text is not helpful. While it is important that editors be aware of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, I think editor retention is also important. The editor is not being neutral? Point out what is wrong, and don't be vague and go without saying the why. If you had completely reverted the edit but taken a moment to explain on the article's talk page or Bouldergeist's talk page, I might have been alright. I just don't think you went about it in the best way. If you disagree with me in some way, I respect that, but again, I think you should be more specific in pointing out the problem. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I added tags to the article based on what you said in your edit summary. I don't get where the original research you speak of is, no I neglected to add an OR tag. Dustin (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

SubtropicalMan at ANI

Hi, I asked in thread about more history, diffs, etc. to document more actionable interference. I wanted to ask you here more directly, do you intend to provide more solid background information in the proposal for the topic ban? If you need a few days that's fine, but I am concerned that it's a fairly severe sanction and I'm just not seeing actionable disruption in the thread or what I saw spending a while looking at the behavior in logs and histories. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 August

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

• On the Jenna Jameson page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Dead Sea 1618

Hi, I would disagree that Dead Sea 1618 makes any credible claim of importance. Why did you remove the tag? Westroopnerd (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Because putting an A7 tag on a new article approximately one minute after an inexperienced editor has written just a single sentence is abysmally rude, stupis, and a violation of WP:BITE. The comments you wrote on your talk page on this point also indicate you don't properly understand the difference between "notability" and "significance", which is a lower standard. If a subject is "potentially notable", depending on the sourcing, there's a claim of significance sufficient to survive A7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

"blithering idiot and/or probable sock at work"

I notice that you recently reverted one of my edits with that summary. What the HELL is that supposed to mean? Westroopnerd (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hullaballoo. You have been here 9 years. You know not to call other editors "blithering idiot". It does not matter if they are an established editor or even a drive by troll. We don't allow personal attacks here. I don't think any action is required in response to this other than a friendly note to please not let it become a pattern. While I rejected the CSD request I can see where the user was coming from, what little assertion of notability there is is weak at best. Chillum 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please stop trolling my contributions

I've still received no reply from you about calling me a "blithering idiot", so can you now stop taking CSD templates off of pages that in no way have a place on Wikipedia? Thanks. Westroopnerd (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No. You do not appear to me to be a good faith editor. You have repeatedly placed inappropriate speedy tags on just-created articles from new users, without giving them any reasonable opportunity to finish writing the articles. Nominating articles for speedy deletion one minute after their creator's first edit is abusive, shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, shows a lack of reasonable civility, and grossly violates WP:BITE. Even though your account was registered barely 24 hours ago, you are plainly not a new editor; your user page makes claims about their past editing, so you are not making a clean start. You therefore appear to be a bad-hand account renewing misconduct about which you were warned or sanctioned, and I suspect your account should be blocked. I note you make attempt to substantively justify your misbehaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Removal

Can, in the future, you give some reason when removing speedy deletion tags I've put up? Deniz Orhun had absolutely no indication of importance (and it was past the 10-15 minute recommended threshold), yet you removed it, calling it "disruptive" with no further explanation. Care to explain? Westroopnerd (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It was eminently clear that the Deniz Orhun article was not a legitimate A7 candidate, and marking it that way shows, at best, a marked lack of WP:COMPETENCE, and probably worse. The article (apparently accurately) identifies as a television presenter on a notable national broadcaster. The identification is appropriately sourced. Your claim that this is "absolutely no indication of importance" is bereft of sensibility and logic, and once again shows you have no business making deletion nominations. And I plainly did not call this particular nomination "disruptive", although in retrospect I certainly should have. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Considering you appear to loathe every aspect of my existence on Wikipedia, you might want to reconsider saying that I have no business making deletion nominations, considering the only ones that have been failed were removed by you. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that. I expect that your prior account contains ample examples of prior misbehaviour, And I'm already sick of your incessant innuendo. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're so concerned about that, why don't you check the account itself? User:Revolution1221 Westroopnerd (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

nonfree image may not be displayed in template

Why not? is there policy for that somewhere? ; if there is then revert also BMW and maybe other templates -->Typ932 ^T·C 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFCC #9. The image in the BMW template is considered a free image as it is too simple to receive copyright protection. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Jason Statham

Hey, I'm not trying to get into an edit war or content dispute over the relationship of Jason Statham, but the content is sourced and the couple still appear to be together as of late July, 2015(at least). I am bringing this here on your Talk page because I don't even think this needs a Talk page discussion on the Article Talk page, but if you insist, I will discuss it there with you. I will provide more sources, but I think that's not really necessary unless there is a change in the status. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert

Your changes (remove images from article) has been reverted, according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE: discuss and consensus first. English Wikipedia allows the use nonfree images. Also, these images are relevant to the content of the article and can be helpful (WP:NFCC #8). Your change is controversial and even if you have any argument, it may be debatable and even as you have a different opinion - this is debatable and must to be discuss first. If any changes are controversial and debatable, I have the right to undo changes and new changes can be made after gaining a consensus. Please stop edit warring, discuss and consensus first - according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No. WP:CYCLE (better known as WP:BRD is an essay. WP:NFCC is policy, and it forbids the use of replaceable nonfree images. That you believe the images meet NFCC#8 is irrelevant; even if they do (and that's debatable), they fail other criteria and therefore can't be used. No discussion is required for their removsal. Restoring such images without consensus that all NFCC criteria are met is disruptive editing, and its repetition is likely to result in blocking. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you wrong. These images meets WP:NFCC, please see description of photos [23][24][25]. As I wrote earlier, your change is controversial and debatable, must to be discuss before changes. Please stop disruptive editing, its repetition is likely to result in blocking. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No, you're, as usual, completely wrong. Read the descriptions yourself. Nogt even the image uploaders claimed the images weren't replaceable. You've been warned enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandingo (actor)

Stop removing sourced content from ym articles! In Mandingo (actor) you removed a whole sourced content (In popular culture, Penis size). It's annoying stop it! --Croxx036 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If you think that's annoying, wait until you're blocked for repeatedly inserting content with reliable sources into BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So you think New York Post is not reliable? WTF even that newspaper reported about the size of Mandingo's penis. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Since that's a source I left in the BLP, any reasonable, competent editor would infer I deemed it sufficiently reliable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Seriously you deserve to be blocked for revoming sourced concent from many pornographic articles. --Croxx036 (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires the use of "high quality" reliable sources. If you won't accept that, you shouldn't be editing BLPs here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Persistence of Vision (collection), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collection. 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) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing info

why are you vandalising a page and removing sponsor references without proof person is no longer sponsored. Also removing key info that is hugely relevant in NZ

Because WP:BLP applies to all biographies. No "proof" is required to remove long-unsourced statements. Reliable sourcing is required to support content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Johnny Sins

Why don't you noninate this article for deletion. If pail the porn bio'c citera lol --Croxx036 (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at HitroMilanese's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hitro talk 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Niccolò Turinetto

Hello, I duly respect your view. But you can not decline speedy on behavioral guidelines, you should consider wikipedia policies first. By removing A7 tag you assert that this article indicates importance and credible claims of significance , which it doesn't . I am not going to take it to Afd or re-nominate it but you should think a little. Regards. Hitro talk 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• Don't be a jerk. Speedying an article less than one minute after a new user had written only a single sentence is abominable misbehavior. I suggest you review discussions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead Sea 1618 to see that your position is just plain wrong. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? What has he written? It's not about a distant planet. You expect sources on that. You are an awesome optimistic. If somebody is acting jerk between me and you then it's not me. Read the article. He wrote most probably about himself and he found you The Saviour. A reporter, photographer, video maker, YouTube, dj and blogger. born in 1998 who created luxury and beautiful things like supercars while studying economics. Lol :p. Let it hang for 7 days, you'll be happy. Dead Sea 1618 had references from Day 1 and even your edit summary says it claims importance, it certainly does. Why didn't you write same edit summary here when declining speedy? Happy Editing. Regards. Hitro talk 22:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jules de Grandin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• included stories published between 1925 and 1930; Quinn provided an introductory essay.<ref>]http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?251238 ISFDB bibliography]</ref>
• assembled and edited by [[Robert Weinberg]]. The collections included about one-third of the series), as well as the only full-length de Grandin novel, ''The Devil's Bride''. The volumes carried

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

A Mile Beyond the Moon

added a link pointing to Science Fiction Adventures

Arthur Tofte

added a link pointing to Boy's Life

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Friendly Cup

Normally, if an article is in the process of creation, I would not tag it for deletion. But a quick search shows that there is no competition called the "Friendly Cup" at the level that would involve that selection of top-tier football clubs. The article is likely a hoax, but it is clearly an article that provides insufficient context to ascertain what the author is writing about. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Katherine Kelly/ Rylan Clark

They are married, you didn't need to change the names of their spouses. Littlerhelper101 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Ryan Clark and Rylan Clark are two different people. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• I was sure that when I typed in google 'Katherine Kelly husband' it came up with 'Rylan Clark' also, I am sure that I watched an interview with Clark and he stated that he was bisexual, not gay. I will try to find evidence to back this up.

Speedy decline at Naseebo Lal

This is the version as it existed[26] after I reverted the POV cruft that was added this morning. Over 5000 bytes of unsourced fancruft was added today. Would you do me the favor of looking at it again, and reconsidering? Not a huge deal one way or another, but unsourced additions by a single fan do not an article make... Scr★pIron^IV 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article says the subject performed on the soundtrack of multiple notable films. That's enough to survive A7, despite the ghastly prose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. If there are no objections, I will consider AfD - assuming that would be a reasonable course of action. Scr★pIron^IV 17:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Spottoon

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Spottoon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or an organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mean as custard (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jack Williamson may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[[[File:Wonder stories 193105.jpg|thumb|right|Williamson's " Through the Purple Cloud" was the cover

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Complain, complain, complain. I've reviewed your contributions and you never have anything nice to say about anyone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to E. E. Smith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Amazing stories 193107.jpg|thumb| ''Spacehounds of IPC'' was also serialized in ''Amazing Stories'')]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Bristol Palin

Please note that BLP allows you to remove unsourced information. Please do not delete well referenced information like you did here and here w/o discussion. This is not about trivia - the subject of the biography took a position on a politiical controversy. Thank you. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Go away, troll. Using Wikipedia in order to shame women whose views you disagree with is grossly unacceptable. The internet is replete with places where you can indulge your misogyny. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of deletion tag

Hi. You tried to message me here, but I didn't receive the message because you added a space in my username, so sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The reason that the edits didn't appear in the contributions history, is because they were blocked by the edit filter and so were never actually committed. You can see the user filter log here. Anyway, it looks like the article issue has being resolved, so that's a good outcome. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Clement Davies c1955.jpg

You have persistently deleted this image erronously from the article United Kingdom general election, 1955.

• You first deleted it saying "obviously fails NFCC#8". NFCC#8 is about contextual significance and the image clearly provides contextual significance to the article. I re-instated the image, saying this.
• You then deleted it again adding "not even a use rationale". You overlooked the fact that the image had a use rationale. I re-instated the image, saying this.
• Despite this, you again deleted the image, claiming the rationale was not valid, stating "nonfree image may not be used for identification outside the subject's biography". I re-instated the image, saying the use rationale was valid, saying nonfree image may be used for identification outside the subject's biography.
• You have now chosen to delete the image again, claiming an unspecified NFCC violation. Earlier you claimed that non-free images can not be used in articles that are not biographies. There is nothing in NFCC policy that remotely suggests that this is the case.
• It seems to me as if you didn't bother to read the file's summary, deleted it by mistake, and when challenged, invented bogus reasons to support your errornous actions rather than apologise and move on. Your most recent actions show that you have learned nothing in the interim. I would urge you to follow wikipedia policies in future. Graemp (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have no interest in complying with NFC policy, and prefer to cast aspersions on editors who enforce it. You provide no support for your claim that "nonfree image may be used for identification outside the subject's biography", because it is wholly unsupported by the governing policy and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia NFCC policy is key and I have checked and there is nothing in policy that backs up your claim of improper use. I suggest you avoid compounding mistakes re-read policy. Graemp (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You need to find provisions of NFCC policy/guidelines which permit the use. There are myriad ways to fail the NFCC, far too many to be listed in the detail you insist on. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

You specifically claim that non-free images can only be used in biographical articles, if such a specific claim were true, then there would be a specific mention of this in policy but there isn't even a hint suggesting what you claim is true. Graemp (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That wasn't my claim. I pointed out that the standard rationale you used was limited to biographical articles, and that mutilating its text so that it no longer reflected policy. When you uploaded the image you said it was "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article". It's not being used for that, and you still provide no other policy-based rationale for its use. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The image was uploaded using the wizard, which was designed to assist editors not familiar with the process. The wizard provides a form of words to assist with WP:NFCC#8. These words are not cast in stone and any form of words can be used. Many editors don't even use the wizard and write their own non-free use rationale from scratch using Template:Non-free use rationale. I prefer to use the wizard and then amended it to properly reflect the image's use. You regard this as mutilation, I call it complying with WP:NFCC#8. Graemp (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's deceptive nonsense. You uploaded an image with a rationale for use in one article and changed it to a different article only after yout screwup was pointed out. And you still haven't cited anything in NFC policy to justify your claim that just because a person is mentioned in article a nonfree image may be used. There isn't any policy support for that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Rationale contradicted by cursory Google search as well"?

Hello there!

A few hours ago, you undid my efforts to merge the articles KDEX-AM and KDEX-FM, but I'm struggling to understand your reasoning. My attempt to merge these two pages is based on the following motivation:

• The pages are nearly identical, i. e. these are two different pages for one and the same radio network. The only difference is that one is for their AM frequency and the other one is for their FM frequency, although they broadcast the same content on both frequencies. This is, to all appearances, unwanted data redundancy, isn't it?
• Both of them share the same callsign named KDEX in the FCC's AM/FM databases (compare over here for AM and here for FM).

Therefore, I tried to have KDEX-FM removed, so that KDEX-AM could be moved to KDEX and be edited accordingly to accommodate for the FM frequency band as well.

Could you please elaborate on what I did wrong at my attempt to merge these two pages? Thanks a lot!

Cheers, subsonic17 02:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subsonic17 (talk • contribs)

• Well, to begin with, the fact that they currently broadcast the same content right now doesn't establish that they always have. or that they have a common history. If they were once independent operations, but later came under common ownership, merger of the articles probably wouldn't be appropriate. I think you need to establish much more than current common operations to justify merging the two articles. At the very least. talk page discussions are needed, and at the conclusion of the process, the superfluous articles would ordinarily not be deleted, but merely redirected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing "CMNF" article

STOP unjustified wholesale deletion of text. Unsourced material is not taboo. I tell you that and you delete the text again saying once again that it's unsourced, but it doesn't matter.

I am not a Wikipedia editor. Therefore I do not know where to complain about your actions. Can you please tell me where can I complain about yours, as I see it, vandalism? (I'm entitled to my opinion, and I call what you do vandalism).

Please provide a LINK to a page where I can complain to encyclopedia authorities about your behavior.

Also stop using slang words like "SYNTH" in your description of your deletions. I am a good-faith visitor, not a regular editor, and I shouldn't be required to know your slang. I suspect that you use it to alienate non-regular editors. Don't forget that this is "ENCYCLOPEDIA ANYONE CAN EDIT". 95.28.219.174 (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But this is not the "encyclopedia where anyone can edit without regard to its content policies and guidelines". Given the number of times over the last two years IPs and SPAs have added back this material after its removal by experienced editors, in particular the linkspam in External links section, it's hard to take your claim of being a "good-faith visitor" seriously. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget a link to a page where I can complain to authorities about your vandalism. 95.28.219.174 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced content is a scourge to editors. Anyone who claims not to be a Wikipedia editor, and does not want to learn our policies and practices, should be left out in the cold when they add unsourced content. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" makes for a good slogan, but a lousy encyclopedia. For me, I would be happy to see IP's restricted to pending revisions, permanently. Let them edit - but with oversight. It would stick to the principle, but make fighting vandalism and SPA's a whole lot easier. Scr★pIron^IV 20:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" makes for a good slogan, but a lousy encyclopedia." - WOW. Thankfully, it's not for you to decide. "Unsourced content is a scourge to editors." - EDITORS are a scourge for content that happily was there for 5-6 years and didn't offend no one but EDITORS. "Anyone who claims not to be a Wikipedia editor, and does not want to learn our policies and practices, should be left out in the cold" - wow again. THIS IS SO AGAINST OFFICIAL POLICIES. I will report you also. Since cowardly you and cowardly Wolfowitz decided not to ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION WHERE I CAN COMPLAIN, THUS REFUSING ME A LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH AUTHORITIES, I will find it myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents right? 95.28.219.174 (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am reporting you two. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 95.28.219.174 (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

No there's not. Perhaps the IP came to their senses and realized the likely boomerang effect such a report would have?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not YET. There's no rush. Read how scary the "boomerang effect" is to me right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScrapIronIV#Please_help_with_vandalism I'm just taking my time. I need to put all their violations together - like denying the line of communication with authorities, publicly denouncing Wikipedia policies, bad faith mass-deletions etc. Also I'm male, so you can stop applying the wrong pronoun to me if you're educationally able™ (as if everyone with a nickname is gender-identifiable by their nick, like you, for example. Definitely not you, "Ponyo"). It's just my courtesy to give Balloo and Scrap time to prepare.

HEY COWARDS! (THIS MEANS Hullaballoo AND ScrapIron) YOUR CURRENT RESPONSE TO MY "Don't forget a link to a page where I can complain to authorities" BULLET-POINT IS, FOR SOME REASON, "Unsourced content is a scourge to editors". HOW ABOUT A REAL ANSWER? DO YOU AGREE IT SHOULD GO TO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents or maybe posting at another section of Admins' noticeboard will have maximum effect and speedier discussion? THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO PROVE YOU'RE NOT COWARDLY WEAKLINGS. STEP FORWARD AND SAY "I'M SURE WHAT I DONE IS RIGHT. I'M NOT AFRAID TO BE SCRUTINIZED". 95.28.219.174 (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There's gonna be a boomerang, alright. GAB^Hello! 13:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't care, I haven't got a Wiki nickname and my IP is dynamic. Duh. 95.28.219.174 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The image is used at Karachi Dolphins So Iam using it on this user box too

The image is used at Karachi Dolphins So Iam using it on this user box too KArachi Dolphins. Kindly restore the image on this user box,--Jogi 007 (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• No. Just because a nonfree image is used appropriately in a particular article does not mean it is free for use elsewhere. Wikipedia policy governing use of nonfree images, in particular WP:NFCC#9, prohibits the use of nonfree image outside articles and articlespace. In particular, nonfree images may not be displayed in userspace. Since userboxes are only placed in userspace, they may not include nonfree images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Mike Tyson

I left a comment about your recent edit at Talk:Mike Tyson.  86.181.32.66 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

An apology

After making some rude and sarcastic remarks against you, I must apologize for it – sarcasm and ignorance make the editing environment toxic, and I did just exactly that Thanks for taking the time to rebut my close; your premises were valid and I just completely, improperly, and, without a single ounce of decorum of my own, ignored them. Esquivalience ^t 01:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Defenders (short story), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Novelette. 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) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaugural Playboy Nude Centerfolds

I'm not sure if a secondary source can be found, but some research is necessary. kencf0618 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hi Wolfy, I see you declined the CSD G4 nomination of Ladma. Of course as a non-admin I can't see the deleted article, but the Saltzman1959 comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladma sure does make it sound like it's the same "small comedy collective." Did you want to reconsider? The Dissident Aggressor 18:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Who did you get angry recently

Feel free to look at the two early edits on 2015-10-25 in Special:Contributions/122.169.49.188. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Somebody who's been trying to get Mihir Shah deleted for the last month or so. Probably something to do with local or academic politics. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Flute Solo

Hi; I wonder if you could explain your decision to remove the piece by Brecht, since it has direct relevance to the text, having been mentioned specifically and used to illustrate his work as a good example of the art he's most famous for. I believe it has the right copyright label, and certainly falls within fair use. Best, Franciselliott (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, it consists entirely of an image of text. It is, to say the least, rather difficult to maintain that a depiction of text "could not be conveyed in words", as the use rationale states. Second, even if you do not accept the principle in general, in this specific case the piece can be adequately expressed in text. Cage's 4′33″ accomplishes the task without using a nonfree file, and the same can be done here. I wouldn't deny that this falls within "fair use", but meeting fair use requirements isn't sufficient to satisfy the requirements of WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. The WMF has set a very high bar limiting the use of nonfree content; the en-wiki standard is "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". That's a much more restrictive standard than fair use. "Merely" being an excellent illustration isn't enough to meet it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

new user name

You said that LB's harasser is working under a new user name. Is that something you know he is actually doing or is that just conjecture? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I said he's allowed to edit under a new username, since no sanctions were placed on him, and he had said he was considering returning under a different name. There's at least one shady account created since he left that shares some of his behaviours, but they aren't terribly distinctive and are clumsier than I'd have expected. Given the way that the anti-outing policy is being more tightly enforced these days, and that he exposed his own real-life identity on-wiki, I really can't be much more specific. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CLEANSTART "If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts." and "However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. ". If linking two accounts is risking outing (due to one of the accounts previously being outed) CLEANSTART/SOCK pages should probably clarify that.

In any case, I understand your point, but your point presumes the answer to a question - that we know LB's harrasser. I personally agree that there was sufficient evidence, but the functionaries did not. You can't complain about the punishment, when they are stopped on the identification. One of the "not sufficiently proven" voices last time was Thydruulf who said something about if the identity had been considered conclusive enough there would almost definitely have been a site ban.

Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

One other comment, "even though that opportunity was denied to Lightbreather". Lightbreather's own foibles led to her sanctions. Her foibles do not justify the harassment, but neither does the harassment absolve her missteps. Had she been found blameless, I'm sure she would have been allowed (and taken) a clean start, but even her strongest defender in the committee (GW) found her at fault in numerous areas. Conflating the harassment with her own actions does nobody a service, not LB, and not greater womankind either. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There was an episode of on-wiki harassment, paralleling the comment directed at Malik Shabazz. There is no question whose account posted the comment involved. No action was taken. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure which comment/editor you are referring to then. Was it brought up during the case? Was it used in any of the findings? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It was not mentioned, and apparently ignored, during the case. It occurred during the case (via edit summary). Lightbreather did complain to an admin about it, who sloughed it off. I don't know if she raised it directly with ArbComm. Since I'm not allowed to point it out directly, I'll draw this parallel [27]. Very much like the comment directed at Malik Shabazz, a barb not so likely to be noticed if you weren't its target, but here there was no possibility it was inadvertent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, Not being able to see the precise edit in question, its difficult to say for sure, but assuming it was something on par with the book you just linked to : I could certainly see someone being trouted over that, or used as additional evidence to weigh in against someone as a pattern of behavior, but it seems unlikely to draw severe or lengthy sanction on its own. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And now its moot! Gaijin42 (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed. A promising start to my day. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking Down Pictures

Hullaballoo: please explain to me, in plain english - not Wikipedia speak - the several circumstances under which an image can be used on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:87:21E3:E02A:68:1BD7 (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hullaballoo: please read the following from the Wikipedia policy page which allows me to use this cover art: Images[edit] Shortcut: WP:NFCI Some non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Wikipedia. All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here. The following list is not exhaustive but contains the most common cases where non-free images may be used and is subject to the restrictions listed below at unacceptable use of images, notably §7 which forbids the use of press agency images when the image itself is not the subject of commentary.

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:151D:87:21E3:E02A:68:1BD7 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You've answered your own question: not for identification without critical commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to be civil and help me or are you not going to be helpful? well, it seems all i have to do to make you happy is include "critical commentary". Would you then leave this page alone?

It's not civil for you to demand I drop everything I'm doing to "help" you haven't made yourself familiar with the basic WP guidelines. The general rule is that you can't use album covers to illustrate discographies, including lists of albums. See WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFC#UUI#2. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hullabaloo: it is NOT civil to insinuate that i "demanded" anything. I merely asked a question: are you going to be civil? ...and helpful. I guess i have my answer. Please note that I have included a section consisting of CRITICAL COMMENTARY near the end of the article. Because the article now contains Critical Commentary - per wikipedia rules - i have now replaced all of the pictures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay Mr. Hullaballo: even though the page now contains Critical Commentary, it seems you would like to harass me and purposefully damages this page. If you do not cease in your destructive behavior I will have no choice but to report you to the admins and request that you be blocked from Wikipedia. Again. I will give you 24 hours before I report you to the wikipedia admins. Please reconsider your harassment. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Hullaballoo: a further indication of your wanton disregard for Wikipedia rules is that policy states conflicts are supposed to be DISCUSSED on the relevant TALK pages - not to immediately harass and bully and editor with repeated undos... you NEVER engaged in a discussion on the relevant TALK page. I have now requested that you be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarembo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Should I infer from the contradiction between your two previous comments that you are dishonest, or that you do not understand the difference between 24 hours and 24 minutes? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo):  please understand that I accelerated my request to block you because, (a) your overly aggressive tactics, (b) your failure to discuss the issues on my and the pages talk page as clearly provided by wikipedia BRD guidelines, and (c) because you continued to persist in damaging the wikipedia article in question.  Your persistent actions actions caused me to change my actions.  As you 'handle" suggests, you see yourself as a wikipedia bully and your actions in this latest controversy is consistent with you tactics of bullying other editors. Bullying tactics are prohibited by wikipedia... please refer to wikipedia policies. Zarembo (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Zarembo, let me jump in here to let you know that pursuing this will in no way lead to a block for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I wouldn't say the same for you, however, as you are on the wrong side of policy here. No administrator is going to block an editor for removing images due to legitimate copyright concerns. Edit-warring to restore them however is another story. At this point you need to follow dispute resolution; using ALL CAPS and throwing around accusations of "bullying" when another editor advises you of your errors will not give you the end result you seek.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Enemy Mine IASFM.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Enemy Mine IASFM.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina

Why is it an nfcc violation?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable nonfree image in BLP. Not even a shred of relevant sourced commentary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Next time, I think you ought to refer specifically to what Parts of NFCC you're relying upon. Also, given the ongoing discussion at the talk page, why not participate at talk? If you’re referring to NFCC #1, there is no free equivalent showing her participation in this event. If you’re referring to NFCC #8, this non-free content significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, given that the image accompanies a sentence of text that says: "On September 3, 2008, Fiorina addressed the Republican National Convention." Does the image become acceptable in your opinion if I add a footnote to that sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Your argument here has nothing to do do with our NFC standards. The text is perfectly sufficient and requires no visual "support". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I specifically referred to the specific criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and specifically asked you to specifically identity which of those specific criteria you are relying upon. I give up. Have a nice day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Michelle Bauer may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• California]]) is an [[United States|American]] [[B-movie]] actress, [[scream queen]] and [[Pornographic actor|pornographic actress].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

G5 CSD reversal

Hi. Not arguing with your decision, since clearly if they weren't banned when they created an article, then you are absolutely correct. But how would I know that in the future. What happened was that I had prodded another article by this same editor, and another editor G5'd it. Seeing that, I went to the other article this now banned editor had created, and did the same. Is there something I should be checking? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Unless you're dealing with a sockpuppetry case or a topic ban, if they created the article under the name they were blocked/banned under, they created it before the block/ban. Once they're blocked/banned, they can't create articles under that username. If you're not sure, check the page history to get the date/time the article was created. Then click the contribs link for the creator, which will show the date/time for the most recent entry in their block log. Usually that takes care of it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Brown Coye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Arthur. 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) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Skow for Girlfriends Films, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: This IP is serially deprodding articles without explanation, and I've reverted, but not about to get into an edit war. What are your suggestions for handling this on a longer term basis? Scr★pIron^IV 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to file an edit warring notice on them, since they aren't providing any explanations, and refuse to discussion the allegation that they're the sock of a blocked/banned user. I also think it's time to place a formal block request at ANI. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello HW and SI. There have been at least two threads about this at ANI. Here WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903#De-prodder and here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 De-prodding several random articles without explanation. On the first one most of the articles were taken to AFD but I haven't followed what went on with the second one. I suspect you are both aware of this but I thought I'd leave the links in case they will be of use with any reports that you start. MarnetteD|Talk 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I put in my 2¢ worth, but having read the discussions, it really doesn't look like anything will be done. Scr★pIron^IV 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

re 3RR report

You said:

"refuses to address the claim in any forum"

Sorry but you are mistaken. If you believe I am the same editor that was objecting to PRODs yesterday then I addressed the claim by responding to it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Appealing_a_block&diff=next&oldid=688777507 . I see no need to continue responding to unfounded claims on other forums that suggest I am evading a block. I am not.

Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not addressing the claim, that's the evidence of it -- a virtual admission. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not evidence. It's ridiculous that asking about possible unblock processes that protect the user's privacy (by not requiring them to use their email) is considered evidence of evasion or sockpuppetry. As I said in that linked reply, I have no account that is blocked. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you just showed up here a few days ago and immediately became concerned about this. Perhaps you have a bridge I might be interested in purchasing, or some funds in a Nigerian bank account I could share in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As I clearly said in the explanation, I am occasionally affected by blocks even though I am not the offending editor. So of course I was eventually going to ask about private unblocking processes. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Gee, did your roommate get you blocked again? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

No, their little brother did it. Scr★pIron^IV 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"disruptive editing"

Please stop reverting my edits across various articles. Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• No. Please stop disruptively editing Wikipedia to retaliate for what is likely your well-justified block or ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am not blocked or banned. There is no evasion. I will not continue to argue this ridiculous point. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And, of course, no blocked/banned user would ever deny it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopping IP is clearly WP:POINT and has been reported. Widefox; talk 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod 2

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Joe Simmons (actor), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Abu Sayeed M Ahmed PhD

Don't get snippy. You only declined my Speedy on the page. No other speedy was placed on the page. The page was created with a speedy to begin with because the page keeps getting deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

Cut the BS - Leave the Kahlo painting alone. See the talk page here [28], thats been there for years. She is one of the most important 20th century artists making self-portraits. You should read a book...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your inept attempt at bullying, and your incivility, is noted. You make no attempt to justify inclusion of the image under our actual non-free use policy. The discussion you point to is simply your own assertion that an issue has been settled, when review of the actual discussions show that no agreement was reached. In any event, a 2007 discussion cannot establish that the use meets our current NFC/NFCC policy and guidelines, and a review of the file page history shows that multiple users have objected to its use in this article, while only you have supported it. Even in the 2007, while there clearly was consensus to include the image in articles centered on Kahlo and her work, there was no consensus to include it in other articles, particularly those without well-sourced commentary related to the specific topics of the articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

M G Leonard

Where is the assertion of notability? She's written a book which has yet to be published. Otherwise, my career stints at the Royal Opera House & with the NT make me about as notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please learn what the criteria for speedy deletion are. Only an assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, is required to survive A7. Selling a book to a major trade publisher and having it definitely placed on its publication schedule is a sufficient assertion of significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A credible asserion of notability, I think. Anyway, looks like this bit of promotion is for the dumper.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Holobaugh

Actually the close in 2013 specifically referred to re-creation after fighting three times for top tier organisation to meet WP:NMMA which the subject has yet to do.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to the general principle rather than the specific example. Since the article now claims winning a notable title subsequent to the AFD, the db-repost was clearly inappropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A second tier title is not considered notable according to WP:NMMA but I see your point. Just means a second AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Football

Why did you delete in Cupa României seasons, the pictures of Steaua, because their previous name was CCA București and CSAC București ?? Can you upload the old emblem then?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The image I deleted was nonfree (under copyright), and could only be used to identify a team in an article where the team waas the article subject, as specified on the file page for the image. If the old emblem is a free image -- and it's probably not, since most team logos aren't -- I suppose you could substitute it in the articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kevinodonnell1976.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kevinodonnell1976.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Warp drive may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1931 novel ''[[Islands of Space]]''.<ref>J. Gardiner, "Warp Drive - From Imagination to Reality", [[Journal of the British Interplanetary Society], vol. 61, p. 353-357 (2008)</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Have you ever left a nice message foe anybody? Can you do nothing but find fault? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It girls

Hi Hullaballoo. The Cressida Bonas article doesn't really deserve the time, but I'm curious as to how to deal with the "widely referred to as" thing. She's clearly widely referred to as an "it girl".TelegraphMCPeopleHola But there likely aren't any sources that say "widely".

How about changing it to Bonas has been called an "It girl".[29][30]? Bromley86 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islands of Space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyperspace and But. 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) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Greater Rayalaseema

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:How to propose it. Talk:Greater Rayalaseema can also help. It is purely invented. G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes Will it be applicable?--Vin09 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Just use a standard deletion process, like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. This is the sort of claim that requires an opportunity for discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this should be interesting

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Statement If you say anything about this here, please place comments under this heading. Yes, I know this isn't going to be a successful candidacy, but more of a Pyrrhic defeat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh heh. I've never heard the phrase Pyrrhic defeat before.  :-)     But can one ask, what is the point of standing? Are you an issues-candidate that wants to bring awareness of the issues up? If so, what are the issues, as in specifically, what would you like the new crop of arbs to do/change/accomplish? Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I would say there are a million more pleasant things to do with your time than answer ACE questions. But, I'm impressed with everyone who gives it a go! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry

Hi, I've emailed you (via Commons) on an election-related matter. Tony (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

A reminder that if you wish to be included in the survey, we'll need to receive your response within 8–12 hours. Tony (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See: User:Bobbybobbie/DJ Montay

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Reddogsix's deletion of DJ Montay. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

survey response withdrawn?

Hello, from your comment at the User_talk:Mike_V#ACE2015 thread, I was under the impression that you did not wish your answers to be used? Or have you changed your mind, and decided to leave them in? Please see WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-18/Special_report which went live a short time ago, and also the thread at User_talk:NE_Ent concerning the broader matter. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AEL FC

Hello.. I am the author of the page AEL FC. Be sure that i perfectly know better than you about the club and the current photo confirms with copyright rights. Please respect my work and do not restore again and again or i will block you as many other users did recently. Thanx. DON'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING TO DO IN YOUR LIFE THAN DELETING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK?

Orphaned non-free image File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg ⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Syed Mahmood Quadri

You wrote that Syed Mahmood Quadri "just survived AfD". Well... there was not a single !vote at the AfD. As for all practical reasons discussion did not happen (AfD stands for "articles for discussion") and the article still satisfied CSD, I tagged it accordingly. Maybe AfD could have been kept open a little longer, until other editors commented. I now see that it was a mistake on my part to AfD the page in the first place instead of CSD'in it - I just wanted to be kind. kashmiri ^TALK 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I think HW probably knows about the election... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Speedy deletion Badrul Hisyam Manap

Yo have removed speedy deletion tags on this article, that was placed by different editors, TWICE, and you have done the same tactics, repeatedly, on other articles too. That's unacceptable by Wikipedia rules.
If you disagree with other editors, please explain your point in the articles' talk page; otherwise, it might be considered as an edit war on you part.
Also, some of your comments to other editors are not that great either. Keep in mind that everything in Wikipedia is recorded. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from 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 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 page. Thank you. MarkYabloko 17:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Read WP:SPEEDY again. Any editor except the article creator can remove a speedy tag. For most speedy tags, including the one at issue here, a declined speedy should not be placed again; instead, standard deletion processes should be employed. And somebody like you, who just placed a phony warning on my page with no basis in fact, has no business complaining about statements by other editors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am really not impressed with you work or your attitude The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk). You are constantly pushing your POV with complete disregard and disrespect to other editors. You are ignoring talk pages and consensus from other editors, and you are constantly reverting everybody; you accept nothing but your own edits, and you are hounding editors with half-obscenities and disparaging remarks. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia WP:PERSONAL and WP:NPOV, which are especially concerning, since you were given unjustly reviewer rights. I am few strokes away from filling a formal complaint with the administrates, to revert your reviewer rights among other complains, and believe me, I already have a whole list of editors who would support my claims and who are extremely unhappy with you. If I hear one more nasty word out of your mouth, any disparaging remarks toward me on any any of the edits that I do, any more of your personal remarks like "silly", "hasty", "phony", or if you try to again to deny the obvious abuse, or try to intimidate me with your Big Bad Wolfowitz attitude, then that's will be it. THIS ABUSE MOST STOP NOW. MarkYabloko 17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• You've been editing substantively here for less than a month. It's evident your understanding of deletion policies and practices is grossly deficient. Earlier today, for example, you placed a vandalism tag on Dignity Test (since deleted over copyright issues), even though it clearly wasn't vandalism. You placed a PROD tag on Syed Mahmood Quadri, even though it plainly wasn't PROD-eligible, since it had just survived an AFD. Earlier this week, you placed a db-repost tag on Cybera even though it had never been through AFD. Your edit history shows a practice of targeting new editors' first efforts for deletion without giving them a decent opportunity to complete work on their first articles, and the term "hasty" is more than appropriate in that context. I am not the only experienced editor who has turned down your deletion requests, and you would do well to learn from the comments you are receiving, unwelcome as you may find them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Anya Major

WP:UULP#6 doesn't exist. What did you mean to point to? I tried WP:BLP, but that has two numbers separated by a period. I don't care that the image is there or not, I just want to know why for future reference. DreamGuy (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo; the link is WP:NFC#UULP#6. The principle is that, to minimize the use of nonfree content, it's preferable to link to an article where the nonfree content is the central subject rather than reuse the nonfree content in multiple articles. Since we have a standalone content about the commercial, linked in the bio, the nonfree image shouldn't be repeated there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ignorance fought. Thanks! DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Barry Dufour

Hi, I have a question. Not trying to pick a fight, just to understand. You removed the "BLP PROD" tag from Barry Dufour with the comment "article has sufficient referencing to defeat BLPPROD". But this article has no references at all, and it has never had any - at least not in the sense of anything that shows up in the {{Reflist}}. So I would be interested to understand what references your comment referred to.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Quick answer before I fall asleep. BLPPROD "requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) The article contained an external link, to the subject's university profile. The university may not be Oxbridge or Ivy calibre, but it's a reputable institution which can be counted on to vet its professors (and editing a scholarly book for Cambridge University Press also signals significant credentials). So I think the article was not only sufficiently sourced to defeat the BLPPROD, but to support a reasonable assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that - makes sense to me! And I learned something, so it's a good day.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Userbox:Music/Artist=Paloma Faith

Hi, Thanks for your input. Can you please explain how you know the image is non-free use? Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it's identified as a nonfree image on File:Can't Rely on You cover.png. More broadly, you need to establish that an image is free before placing i in userspace; if you don't know or can't tell, don't display it in userspace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do as you have advised next time. CandidLibraryEditors (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Fornari

Why did you removed the template? Don`t you see the link that I give? It is clearly a copyvio and the text is taken from the International dictionary of psychoanalysis. --Ilikeliljon (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I compared the article with the entry on Franco Fornari in the International dictionary of psychoanalysis,[31] and although the article flow closely follows the encyclopaedia, it has been modified so much that it cannot be termed a copyvio. kashmiri ^TALK 12:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Kashmiri is pretty much on target. From WP:G12: For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Please consult Wikipedia:Copyright violations for other instructions. Looking at the history, if there is a copyvio, it happened three years ago, when the article was translated from the it-wiki version (if that article was merely a translation of the source cited in the speedy nom.) This isn't a simple enough determination to justify speedy deletion, especially since there's been nontrivial intervening editing since 2012. If you think this is a translation of a translation, which would probably be a copyvio, if the translations were close enough, you should follow the non-speedy process described in WP:G12. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

pls join me

...Talk:Military history of Canada#Oka image again -- Moxy (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Case amendment request

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Amendment request: Lightbreather (October 2015). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"why do editors put A7 on pages like this?"

So instead of either dropping me a message or just tagging G3, you decided to put a snarky remark in the edit summary? Yes, I made a mistake and it should have been a G3, no need to be uncivil about it -- samtar ^whisper 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you try assuming good faith? I have seen similar bad tagging, over and over and over, with A7 stuck on flagrant attack pages and the most obvious of hoaxes. I hit about five of them in five minutes today, and I think this one was the worst. Wasn't this an article "about" somebody who was supposedly notable for walking on other planets? If you're tagging so rapidly you didn't notice that, you need to slow down. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Halime Sultan

This whole Story is a fiction, there is no any reliable source given that she was exist. There is no Valide (Queen Mother) who named Halime Sultan in the Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That may well be so, but it's not blatant enough to justify speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of CSD tags and reasons given by you

• Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, an article Kampfmaschine was created on 9 Dec 15 (Slovenian metal band formed in 2015) which was tagged for CSD by me. You removed the CSD tag here citing "remove speedy, article includes a credible claim of significance (formed by notable musician), a lower standard than notability". Did you check who that founding "notable musician" is? As per the article, the band was established in 2015 by Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski in Gimnazija Poljane. Following are some details for you;

• Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski (1 Mar 1899 – 8 Mar 1972) was a German SS-Obergruppenführer (Army General) and not a musician. He died 43 years before the claimed band was formed.
• Gimnazija Poljane is a grammar school in Ljubljana.
• The article "Kampfmaschine" does not cite a single source.

Your contributions are appreciated and are welcome but please be cautious of your edits. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I happen to notice that your talkpage has multiple messages where several people have objected about removal of CSD and PROD. Just a friendly and unsolicited advice (on GF), slow down and be careful before you get reported by someone to admins. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You placed an inaccurate speedy on an article. The Kampfmaschine article included apparently plausible claims of notability, but you tagged it as A7. Given the information you provided here (but not before), you should have placed a G3 (vandalism/hoax) tag on the article, or (better) a PROD tag, since determining the article to be a hoax requires some checking. It's not my responsibility to determine whether any other reason for deletion exists when removing an inaccurate speedy tag. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I placed an inaccurate notice???? Are you serious? Apart from the ANI discussion involving you, there are multiple editors who are complaining about your CSD / PROD removal issues. It is very much YOUR responsibility to determine and find facts before you remove any tags from an article; make no mistakes with that. Did you even bother to check what the page and the claims were all about? I don't think so. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious, and rather than continuing to bitch about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you would be better advised to note that the uninvolved editors who responded at ANI found nothing inappropriate about my tag removals. Your own speedy tagging, however, is too often inappropriate; here [32], for example, you tagged a sportsman who participated in the US national championship in his sport, which is clearly an assertion of notability, not merely significance; even worse, you tagged the article four minutes after the creator began writing it, without affording them a decent opportunity to complete their work. At Luke Carlson: A Living Legend, you missed the point that the article was an obvious attack page, which should have been tagged that way to ensure rapid administrator action. You need to be more careful in your tagging. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Michael J. Yaremchuk, you may be blocked from editing. It's not the first time that you remove AfD. Please note that you are not allowed to do this and it is up to an admin to decide on validity. kashmiri ^TALK 13:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Update: matter has been discussed at ANI and this notice is no longer needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prefers to leave it here for reference purposes. kashmiri ^TALK 17:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. kashmiri ^TALK 13:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nairobi Sailcat

FYI Nairobi Sailcat is at AfD now... JMHamo (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Why are you so goddamn insistent on WP:BITE-ing a new editor who made a good faith effort to write an article and got tag-slammed before he had decent chance to finish working on their first article? The ferality of new page patrollers who would rather collect scalps than actually improve Wikipedia absolutely disgusts me. In terms of complying with WP:BEFORE, what sources did you check to reach your conclusion, since you presented not one shred of reasoned analysis? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you can find significant coverage in reliable sources that's independent, I will of course withdraw my nomination... I could not find anything, so it's at AfD. JMHamo (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• So you're acknowledging you didn't comply with WP:BEFORE, right? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop making assumptions about me that aren't true. The simple fact is Nairobi Sailcat is non-notable and is at AfD because of a lack of reliable sources. Basic stuff. JMHamo (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You haven't made a reasonable attempt to find them, and the article creator wasn't given a decent opportunity to work on the article. Period. You can shout and wave your hands all you want, but that's the bottom line. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Now deleted at AfD JMHamo (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. More editors were forced to waste their time on pointless discussion when outcome was predictable. Simply, WP:ARTICLEAGE is not a justification to keeping an article, contrary to what HW suggests. kashmiri ^TALK 12:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree Kashmiri, but I've already been called a troll by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, so I doubt he will listen. Ah well... JMHamo (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

King Solomon's Ring (short story)

added links pointing to TSR and Novelette

The Snow Women

added a link pointing to Hugo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Gangsters (2017 film)

There is no evidence that this movie exists after googling. I think it's eligible for either G3 or A7. Thanks for replying. Ueutyi (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

G3 is fine (I prefer to use db-hoax, so it's clearer for the reviewing admin). But A7 is reserved for "real" subjects, and expressly excludes creative works. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kings in Darkness

Why, Hullabaloo, did you remove the four-line poem from the conclusion of the story? It is not an external poem, it is an integral part of the story, written by a character in the tale. it's a part of it and should remain there. Thanks. Robert Fraser 04:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It's quoted, therefore nonfree, and isn't essential to understand the plot summary. If it were just prose I might not have flagged it, but the standards for poetry (like song lyrics) are stricter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Calumet National Bank Building

You saved another article of that user, can you see if you could salvage this mess? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Orinda Aquatics

I declined your speedy deletion request on Orinda Aquatics and I essentially nuked all edits to that article made in December. The article has existed since March 2007 and the negative content was only added in December. In the future, before tagging for CSD G10, make sure that the article is actually a newly created article. For existing articles, the negative content should simply be reverted. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Aria Giovanni

Can you please tell me why you restored the page without the informations I added with sources? Thanks. --Doctor01~itwiki (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Because, as I rather plainly stated in the edit summary, IMDB does not meet the standards for reliable sources as prescribed in WP:BLP, at least for biographical claims. There is an established consensus on this point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

I was wondering if you could reconsider your decline of the speedy nomination on S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). You said, "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion", but the two sources (Cricinfo and Cricket Archive) have almost identical information. Moreover, I am certain that every regular editor of cricket pages is familiar with both these sources, and the deletion discussion was almost certainly conducted on the basis of checking both sources. (I know I did.) Moreover, the deletion arguments included "Google search only brings up trivial statistics pages", so it is clear that both sources were familiar with at least some (and probably all) editors. It strikes me as bad practice to allow the re-creation articles deleted at AfD merely because a trivial reference has been added. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an attempt to twist a scenario in order to make a WP:POINT which is quite invalid. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive are independent of each other and are not always in accord. Their agreement about Perera is verification of each other's content. They are both reputable sources widely used on WP by CRIC project members. The original "one-line" stub about Perera did not contain inline citations and did not mention ESPNcricinfo at all while CricketArchive was merely included in the external links section. As such, it was arguably fair enough that it was deleted because notability was not properly established and an additional constraint arose in the AfD because no one thought to mention WP:NCRIC. The new version of Perera uses inline citations and provides extra information including linkages for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with Sri Lankan cricket. To say that the two sources are "trivial" is ludicrous. They are substantial sources. Your decision to refuse the speedy deletion was the correct one, especially as a significant new source confirms the information provided by the significant "old" source. Thanks very much. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Jack makes the point I would have made, perhaps more clearly han I might. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Emma Watson

I have reverted your edit to Emma Watson. My reasons: "college students dating classmates" usually are not encyclopedic—except when one's an actress of international acclaim and the other accompanies her to a major, highly publicized entertainment event. Her romance—and, more specifically, her breakup—with a notable athlete was widely covered; Watson herself addressed the inaccuracies of the article published by People, a reputable source that, as do they all, got something wrong. Therefore, in my view, this is not gossip-mongering, and certainly is not insignificant. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for retaining Munnad college. Prof. Manna (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Johnston McCulley

added a link pointing to Guy Williams

Sshhh ...

added a link pointing to George Barr

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Czolgolz/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients

This was one of my favorite articles that was deleted, and I'm just trying to preserve it. How do I make this right? Czolgolz (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As I recall, the standard process is to either ask the deleting admin to userfy a copy for you or to place a request for userfication at WP:REFUND. Standard licensing requirements mean that the prior edit history must be preserved, so a simple cut-and-paste isn't allowed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's now gone. Tell me, sir, do you create anything on Wikipedia, or simply destroy? Do you edit to spread knowledge, or are you merely a bureaucrat? Czolgolz (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that I told you, above, how to handle the matter properly, in a very simple way, and you ignored the advice, you really have no business complaining. Why aren't you interested in complying with Wikipedia's straightforward copyright/licensing requirements? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Jean Isherwood

I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while so this has just come to my attention. I notice that you deleted several images by that artist, which were being used by agreement with the artist' heir and executor, Jacqueline Dabron. The Japonica indicates the artist's great skill as a still life painter. The book cover relates directly to her last major project. An Illustration by Isherwood appears on the cover.

I would like the pictures restored.

Amandajm (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"By arrangement with" and similar permissions which provide for Wikipedia-only use, or are otherwise limited, aren't acceptable. Please review WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. Unless the artist's representatives are willing to provide a CC-license allowing for both commercial reuse and modification, which likely wouldn't be prudent for them to do, standard NFCC limits preclude use of the array of images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not speedy?

Hello.

Why was it not speedy?

Regards.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Because there's no indication this is noncontroversial. Try opening a discussion on the article talk page first. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

If you'd cared to look in the target article or the Baron Carrington article, you would have seen that this is uncontroversial. The last name is spelled with one 'r', and the title with two. Maybe the name Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington rings a bell?

But allright, I'll make it an RM instaed.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: No it is non-controversial. Reversing redirects is done on a routine basis and does not require lengthy discussions, except in rare cases. Undoing your speedy removal. kashmiri ^TALK 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Arguing about whether something is noncontroversial is pretty much the paradigm of a self-defeating argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

That could of course be said, but if the argument that says it's controversial is founded on a mistake, then it's still uncontroversial. However, both of you, let the RM run its course. No need for a silly edit-war on a redirect. Big Bad W, if you object, do so in the RM discussion.

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's uncontroversial for editors knowledgeable of the subject, like HandsomeFella or JMHamo. Big Bad Wolfowitz seems only set on removing speedy nominations added by knowledgeable editors, often without having even faint understanding of the topics (abundant evidence on this page) - thus forcing many people to waste their time at AfD. Only the last week has seen several of his/her reverted speedies finally deleted after non-controversial AfD procedure. Sure it is WP:DISRUPTIVE apart from disparaging towards fellow editors who make decision on tagging, but what can you do? kashmiri ^TALK 23:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we all drop it, and let the RM run its course. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to let things drop, but kashmiri has been on a weird little wikijihad even since I declined a few of his speedies, most conspicuously his A7 nomination of a professor at Harvard Medical School [33], which began with improperly replacing the declined speedy [34], placing a false accusation that I was removing speedy tags from articles I had created on my talk page [35], filing a spurious and quickly rejected ANI complaint [36], filing an AFD that was soundly and unanimously rejected [37], and committing a WP:OUTING violation against a contributor to the article.[38][39] And over the last week or so, he's been jumping into, and trying to inflame, other discussions/disputes I've been involved with. Like this one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

China Babu

You are correct that Rajeshbieee was only blocked recently, well after China Babu was created; but the block was for socking, and the sock-master is a different account, blocked well before. See here. Therefore, Rajeshbieee is evading a block, and all their creations are G5 eligible. I do not intend tagging them all, but I am tagging those decidedly not worth rescuing, per discussion at W:INB. Could you please self-revert this? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction; they were indeed blocked much before the current creations, but their indefinite block was only this year. Considering that an admin asked folks to do the tagging, you can probably see why I made that mistake, not to mention that another admin accepted the same tag for a different creation by the same user, Vinod Kumar (VK). In any case, since replacing the tag would now be inappropriate on my part, I'm prodding both the articles on which you reverted me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right in that it's a really messy situation. I've followed up at ANI. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CatcherStorm ^talk 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Carla Maria Puccini

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I, in my steward's and meta's checkuser's capacity, confirm that any substantial contributions on the page (which was created under a different name in order to "fool" my watchlist) has been made by BDA. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Man Who Awoke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lawrence Manning. 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) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Hey Mr. Why are you continuously wasting your time after my userboxes? You are not gonna decide what I'm gonna keep or delete in my userbox. You simply mind your own business and stop editing or reverting any edits on my userboxes. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 12:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If you persist in adding nonfree images to userboxes, templates, or other pages where they are not allowed under WP:NFCC#9, you are likely to have your editing privileges suspended. Posting phony warnings on user talk pages only increases the likelihood that you will be sanctioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Warmest wishes for the new year from Eman235/talk 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Wolf!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Wolf, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Speedy Tags

I've just seen you've removed the speedy tag from a page (Latin's Next Top Model (cycle 1)). However, please note that both Latin America's Next Top Model and Latin's Next Top Model (cycle 2) have both been speedied. Could you possibly tell me how the linked article is not suitable for CSD A3? Also with another article you've removed the speedy tag for is Praveen Dixit which, granted, may not be A11 Material but could still be CSD A7. Would the latter article be A7? 81.152.228.83 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Wolfowitz. Wikipedia logged me out half way through making that comment. It's me by the way. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Both articles weren't A3, they were G3. Remarking Cycle 1 as G3 now. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• You need to take much more care in placing speedy deletion nominations, and should stop tagging articles moments after their creation, while new editors are still trying to write them. You tagged Praveen Dixit one minute after the article creator had written their first sentence. You tagged an article with rathr lengthy substantive content as A3. You tagged articles on actual, living people as db-madeup. The speedy deletion process is not a license to randomly tag substandard articles for deletion without reasonably and accurately evaluating their content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ballantine441.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ballantine441.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Green Party of Mississippi, 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 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 page. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Green Party of Hawaii has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• You lie. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Hawaii. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Delaware. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kansas Green Party. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Mississippi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Minnesota. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Arizona Green Party, you may be blocked from editing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Sullivan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lost world. 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) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tags

I noticed you've had some bother with people moaning about your tag removals. I too had a similar incident not long ago, and also received threats over it. So much for being bold eh? Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Samantha Ryan

How is it "multiple BLP" violations when the information is well sourced from reliable and valid sources?

Holanthony (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Have you ever read WP:BLP. Unverified accusations from a Twitter post are not "well sourced from reliable and valid sources". Neither are statements from a self-published book. Under you understand such basic points, you have no business editing BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But how is "Off the Set: Porn Stars and Their Partners" by Paulie & Pauline a "self-published book"? You do understand it was released by Aural Pink Press, LLC., right? Not in any way is it associated to either Lockwood or Ryan. Also, how is Ryan's statement that she has retired from the industry an "unverified accusation"? Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater when reverting edits.Holanthony (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop playing games; this is borderline trolling. "Aural Pink Press" is owned/operated by Paulie and Pauline Photography. It publishes only books (probably just one) they author. That's a paradigm of the self-published source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try and act civil and stop throwing out wanton accusations for effect. It is not uncommon for photographers to release their work through their own studios, you know this. The reasons being that the market for photography books is limited. Also, the very premise of the book are couples in a relationship, thus it is not making any "claims" about third parties. All claims are thus related to the source so to speak.

And you still haven't answered my question how you motivate removing Ryan's statement about her retirement.Holanthony (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. Go read the relevant policy/guideline pages, particularly WP:BLP and WP:SPS, carefully. Your failure to evidence awareness of these basic policies is hardly suggestive of good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you say that? Here's what WP:SPS says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Ryan's claim on twitter that she has retired is clearly acceptable under these rules. And please stop making implicit threats. I am reaching out to you on your page to discuss this matter in a due and proper manner.Holanthony (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but irrelevant. If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there. You've been editing since 2010, and somehow haven't figured out BLP basics yet? That's hardly convincing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about Paulie and Pauline? The section I'm referring to is the statement Ryan made on her own Twitter page about herself. By BLP rules, such references are acceptable.Holanthony (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also about other people, and therefore can't be used like you want to. In general, you can't just parrot unverified accusations from self-published sources. Your talk page shoes a long-term pattern of willful blindness to BLP basics, and I'm not inclined to waste any more term on a tendentious editor who's plainly unwilling to learn. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about one twitter post in particular. All she says in that one particular post is that she has retired. It does not mention anyone else and the statement is solely about her. How is that a "violation" of BLP? The very point I am discussing this with you also invalidates your argument of me "not wanting to learn". I see one thing in the guideline, and you make a different interpretation. Hardly extraordinary that I ask you to clarify on the matter, is it?Holanthony (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, you said earlier "If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there". Well, someone has, here: http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Porn-Stars-In-Love-Violet-Blue-Off-The-Set-2541129.php#photo-2072919. Would you be prepared to accept that as a source? Can you please try to answer without resorting to rudeness?Holanthony (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. It doesn't mention Samantha Ryan. Go away. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali Heydarpour

Your edit summary is mistaken. Although two refs were apparently added, one was to Wikipedia itself and neither of the two mention the subject of the article, as noted here. The BLPProd tag should therefore remain in place. BC108 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the summary was correct. You placed the bBLPPROD roughly one minute after a new user began writing. That's just plainly inappropriate. and very bad practice. When they'd finished writing their text, five minutes later, the article may have been badly referenced, but wasn't eligible for an initial BLPPROD. The surviving ref did mention the subject of the article, but the inexperienced editor didn't get the form right. Don't show so much enthusiasm for kicking inexperienced editors around. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Riley Reid

3RR. Take it to talk with Rebecca. Discuss it per MOS:IMAGES Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Drunkards walk ret.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Drunkards walk ret.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: ). Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dowd & Shriver

I see you reverted my edits to the page of Matthew Dowd. If you feel the info doesn't belong please discuss on the talk page without the need to delete and revert sourced material Mk17b (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No. WP:BLP states clearly that dubious material like this should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The burden is on you, under BLP, to obtain consensus for its restoration, and you may not restore it without achieving consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problematic signature. Thank you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of DPI Specialty Foods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DPI Specialty Foods 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/DPI Specialty Foods 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Bazj (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

C1N1K1LL discography

Are you sure it's not A7 or A9 eligible? It was originally tagged A9, but as it's not about a particular album and was more about the band itself, I changed it to A7. Otherwise I would have just removed the A9 tag. Adam9007 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A7 says "not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works"; I think that would exclude discographies from A7. A9 would be a more natural fit, but it is limited to individual works, as you noted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Discogrpahy is indirectly about the band itself, so I thought A7 was a better fit. It's right along the border between A7, A9, and outside CSD's scope isn't it? It almost certainly fails WP:GNG, so I might PROD it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the best way to go. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:SNOW, basically — the band had already been deleted A7, and the album deleted A9 accordingly, so there was simply no real basis left for the discography article to be kept anymore. And bands don't all automatically get their discographies spun off as separate articles from the main one anyway — that only becomes appropriate if and when the band's article is long enough to warrant chunking out into multiple parts. So a separate discography article was never actually warranted, and should have been redirected back to the band article anyway — but with the band article a redlink, it then would have qualified for speedy under G8 too. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Neelix Redirectsy

Your recent removal of CSD tags is not helping the cleanup. Maybe you are not aware of this Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Proposal:_temporary_WP:IAR_speedy_delete_criterion

Stop your trolling. You know perfectly that absolutely nothing in the discussion you cite prevents, or even discourages, editors from objecting to such tags. If you had bothered to check the basis for my objection, you'd have seen it was accurate, but, as usual, you lash out at editors who disagree with you rather than even attempting to edit collaboratively. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

C1N1K1LL

The band's article was already deleted A7, and the only album with an article was already deleted A9 accordingly. And bands' discographies aren't all automatically entitled to get spun off as separate standalone articles from the band's main one anyway, but rather get that treatment only if and when the band's article is long and detailed enough to warrant having parts of it split off to other articles. So it really should have been converted back into a redirect to the band anyway, and not left to stand a separate article of its own — and if it had been handled the way it should have been, it would have become a G8 the moment the main article got deleted. So what would even be the point of still keeping the discography for six more days? The snowball principle is a valid one too. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions". The PROD process doesn't fall within that description. Speedy deletion criteria should be narrowly read, and this doesn't fall witin either A7 or A9. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Williamson

Seeing how you screwed up my careful edits on creating a seperate bibliography page for these authors: Dave Wolverton, R.A. Salvatore, Robert Jordan, L.E. Modesitt, Jr. etc, etc, all my work here was just pastiched and deleted and without even consulting me for that matter, means to me that in my opinion as not so less distinguished editor like you is that you have been violating most professional and editor collegial sense, that brings me into contempt into trying to discuss further and bring up the matter further or even revert the pile of crap you brought back. These authors need bibliography pages. I am trying to conceive them. What you did is without any kind of reasonable justice and collegial relationship here. If you want revert them all, but there is no way, you and I will ever work, ever again in any kind of way here.

The Mad Hatter (talk)

NFCC Violation

Hi there. You removed a photo with this edit, citing an NFCC violaton. Could you explain? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a nonfree image with no article-specific use rationale, and we have multiple free images of the article subject at commons. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't able to locate one of the free images on the commons. Could you please add a link here to one of them? Or better yet, just replace the same image you removed in the article with one of the free ones you speak of. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

[40]. WP:NFCC is absolutely clear here; the nonfree movie poster can't be used as a general illustration in the bio article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find that exact wording in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Could you please point it out? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale". Also check out WP:NFC#UULP#9, which discusses analogous examples. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Unfree Media File" on my User Page.

@User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hi, why did you feel the need to remove the file from my page, without saying anything about it on my talk page? I don't really mind that you removed, but thanks for consulting me on the subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomMeep (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that I Twinkled an article instead of a redirect. The commentary is not helpful though. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Megan Rain

Hi, yes I could use some help. Please give me any suggestions to make the article better. Anyway, she is still new and although no wins yet, she's been nominated for a lot and she also is moderately popular. When I get more information I'll make it a better article. Thank you!-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Bluntly: give up on this one. Read discussions related to WP:PORNBIO. Read WP:BLP and WP:RS with care. The subject apparently falls so far below our notability standards that this would be a lost cause. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

12 Finger Dan

I see you like to challenge PROD/CSD, which is of course fine, but why do you not send them to AfD after then? For example 12 Finger Dan, which you challenged, is at AfD now. Do we need to get consensus at AfD for every non-notable piece of puffery, just seems like a waste of time. JMHamo (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Just slapping a just-not-notable tag on articles you find substandard is an abuse of the deletion process. WP:BEFORE is incorporated into basic deletion policy, and the speed and superficiality with which you're tagging articles makes it clear thaqt you're not complying. Also, your history of following my editing is strongly indicating improper wikihounding at least coming close to WP:HARASSMENT. So stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion, you will notice that the articles I take to AfD are deleted on 99% of occasions, so if I feel that an article should be deleted, I do not apologise for sending it to AfD for wider community consensus, rather than leave a non-notable article to rot. I guess we are never going to agree, so I will leave it at this... JMHamo (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

...and if you want me to back up my claim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ ILJANO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Finger Dan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Games (video game developer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazunari Kakei and there are more; are articles which you challenged that will most probably be deleted once the AfD runs its course. JMHamo (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, can you help me on wikipedia, because I am newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wade Jones (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, because you broke my last change?Damon Felton (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Damon has been indeffed as a sock. Hopefully, this means that Elisha Cuthbert will quiet down for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Non free content use on user pages ?

Hi @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Re removal of University of Queensland logo from my user page: Sure understand non free content but I thought it would be fair use of such. It succinctly identifies the institution and does not imply that I am representing that institution other than I am an ex-student of it. Happy to stand corrected but how is it not fair use ? Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be fair use under the legal definition, but WP:NFCC#9, which is policy, says that fair use images can only be used in articles, and specifically only in the article namespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Such is life I suppose - no biggy for me. Aoziwe (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CHRNPLIS19XX.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CHRNPLIS19XX.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for the excellent additions of the FFM covers onto the List of works by Sax Rohmer page: it makes the whole thing look a lot less bland than it did before! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard Jason Paris

Looks like most of your cleanup was undone...Naraht (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicky Scarfo & Phil Leonetti articles

Hey, I edited the Phil Leonetti biography and sourced it very well. The Nicky Scarfo article has no references whatsoever and was such a prominent figure in the American Mob, if you would like to delete some of it as you did with the other page then go for it and I'll try and found some valuable sources to back up the information. You'll find the whole Nicky Scarfo page is detailed from either a documentary about him or the Phil Leonetti YouTube videos

ActorBoss (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

2nd AFD for Cordelia Mendoza article

Since you participated in the first discussion in 2011 for afd of this article, the result of which was "keep," I am notifying you that another discussion is ensuing about the same article in case you would like to participate again. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

oops

I accidentally reverted you, but I put it back. It was a mis-click. HighInBC 16:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Sins deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Johnny Sins, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I declined the prod on the basis that the reporting on the supposed space sex may be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You reinserted your bold edit to this template. I don't believe it has consensus, so I am requesting that you provide me a link to the discussion in which consensus was achieved to including A7 in the template:Uw-hasty, and specifically how that is supported by WP:A7. Thank you.- MrX 11:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Gina G singles discography

Well, that only took ten months. This stuff isn't patrolled anymore. Pretty much unenforced. You might want to tag the covers as orphaned now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

PROMO

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You apparently interpret db-promo as requiring blatantly non-neutral language. In my view the existence of an article about some obscure product or idea or institution is the product of promotionalism - somebody wants to boost the visibility of X so they create a WP article about it. Please consider that putting Good Shepherd Schools through AfD is a waste of the community's time and will be a SNOW close. I am unhappy that you prevented an admin from reviewing Gary Jones (nurse)‎ but that one, I will acknowledge, is more marginal. But Good Shepherd Schools is a waste of an AFD. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation of db-promo is unsupported by consensus, and amount to an end run around A7 requirements. WP:G11 says clearly, unmistakeably, and unambiguously that Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. Please to conform to this principle when tagging articles in the future. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but it had also been previously tagged g11, but it was declined and fixed, so it wasn't CSD eligible anyway. HW is right here. Adam9007 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Karelasyon episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Max Collins. 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) 10:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of falsified credentials

Hi HW,

I trust you're fine. I want to let you know that I forwarded my credentials and employment document to the OTRS team. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Picture Objection-Bobbie Billard

These are direct from the source Bobbi Billard. My Client and Friend. These picture's are not of my choosing.She has pointed out photo's on Wikipedia that are much worse and do reference how I may want to squeeze her hawking hooters is down right disrespectful. I am trying to do a job I was hired (Recommendation) No Monetary compensation to do. The info and Photo's are from a reliable Source. Herself. Please feel free to contact me or her.. (Me:sprtcs40@yahoo.com or Jibbet1@gmail.com) Or Bobbie Billard:bobbi@bobbibillard.com

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Jim Engel aka:Spart Special Project Art

Note

HW, I politely ask that you be a bit less inappropriate in your edit summaries. Also, bear in mind that not everyone who claims to represent a celebrity, does represent that celebrity. DS (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Stoya

Passes WP:PORNBIO? Support AfD or against? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of a PORNBIO claim, appears to pass the GNG due to coverage of her sexual abuse allegations against James Deen. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, is there a reason for applying WP:UNDUE to her allegations of rape? Nothing has been proven and while I believe other allegations have some merit, hers seems to be questionable to included without background. She may pass WP:PORNBIO for her Best New Starlet award, but I think Rachel Roxxx was deleted, has also won awards and received mainstream coverage. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As the primary complainant I can't see that undue will have much impact. Its unlikely that an AFD would reach a consensus to delete due to the award. WRT Rachel Roxxx - it appears the consensus this time last year was that she didn't pass the GNG - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Roxxx_(3rd_nomination). Awards that are scene related no longer count and according to the AFD, there were no wins at the time of deletion. Are we discussing the same performer? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Dellusion Records‎

Hi, if you checked the note in my edit summary when I reverted Dellusion Records‎, there's nothing for the author to add. There is no company. It's a YouTube page that was created in November 2015, there's no website, no roster of artists, etc. (I checked before I Speedied it.) It's someone posting EDM videos and claiming to be a label, the same is true of "Illusion Studios" and "DeKay Studios," just a few traks on sites like SoundCloud with no signed artists, actual business, etc. IMO it warrants a Speedy, but if an admin declines it I'll take it to AfD. Either way it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and there's nothing for them to add to change it. I'd appreciate it if you'd let an admin review the speedy. JamesG5 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just PROD it if you must. There's no good reason not to allow the article creator a decent chance to write up a new article without being tag-bombed and driven away. The first speedy was added to the article before the creator had a real opportunity to finish their work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Correction to above, I see they've linked their website (which doesn't show up on search & is not linked from their YouTube). It has a bare "about us" and nothing which changes the lack of significance. The speedy contestantation is from the owner of the label, which makes it clear there're WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues with the page, so speedy regardless. The creator was editing the page for some time after I placed the Speedy and added nothing that would show otherwise. JamesG5 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Per your request, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dellusion_Records JamesG5 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Biomass preprocessing

FYI, I've prodded this new essay after you removed the speedy tag. I agree with you that the speedying was patent nonsense, but I think the article itself should better be rewritten from scratch. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Caine

I concur with your edit in the Caine Mutiny article. Since you seem acquainted with such things, perhaps you could evaluate the copyright status of the two Queeg files being discussed here. These are purported trailer images but that is not what my conclusion from examination thereof. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Images Queeg A and Queeg B are PD under the provisions of US Copyright law (Title 17 USC) which establishes that any images first published in pre-1978 uncopyrighted movie trailers are in the Public Domain irrespective of where they may subsequently be published or appear. This has been the accepted policy and basis for their use in WP movie articles by the by WikiProject-Film in 2007. (See WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): "Free Images for Films" (April, 2007) and further explantion HERE.) The specific PD frames from which these two images are derived are from an uncopyrighted 1954 Caine Mutiny trailer as can clearly be seen HERE for "Queeg A" and HERE for "Queeg B". Centpacrr (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sara Ali Khan

Just a courtesy notice that I created a deletion discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Ali Khan since you felt the Speedy was unwarranted. Thought you might care to weigh in. JamesG5 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mher Khachatryan

I misread the original AFD for Mher Khachatryan and thought it said he was a actor also so that was why I put it up, sorry about that! Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SKCRIT

I'm wondering why you excluded the following clause from the policy "no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion." There were clearly delete votes and two redirect votes. Maybe this is best left to an administrator and not suitable for NAC? Jolly Ω Janner 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The delete !vote wasn't there when I started the close; this may be an edit conflict problem. "Redirect" !votes aren't delete !votes. Let's see if there are substantive objections, because, frankly, the trend was overwhelming, particularly since the nom came out and said they were nominating it because they weren't getting their way in a content discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If the deletion vote wasn't there, then that is fair enough. I admit, I can't see it going anywhere at this time. Jolly Ω Janner 02:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Fanindra Deb Institution. 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 page. Please let an admin review it. Musa Talk  14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: If he didn't create the page, he's perfectly entitled to remove speedy tags. Adam9007 (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Only if the removal of said tag is legitimate, i.e. the page was wrongly tagged, or has been improved such that it no longer meets the CSD. — Smjg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You removed a speedy deletion tag on Roots: A Novel by Rahul Bhatt with this comment: "inaccurate, incompetent, abusively hasty speedy tagging". Would you care to explain how the tag was "inaccurate" or "incompetent"? — Smjg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the content provided sufficient context, making the db-context tag plainly inapplicable. Given that the editor who placed the tag has been working in speedy deletion only for a few hours, and is making ghastly inaccurate tags like the one here, Talk:Moinul_Islam_Neloi, it's obviously reasonable to note their lack of competence. You would do well to devote your attention to trying to deter WP:BITE violations which drive away new users attempting to edit reasonably if imperfectly rather than hassling those of us who try to support new users. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Our Lady of Victories Church, Somwarpet

See Our Lady of Victories Church, Somwarpet after C/E.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Charisma Carpenter

What do you mean in-universe? She spends 11 episodes of the fourth season of Angel playing Jasmine, not Cordelia. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Just what I said. A plot point is not an actual role. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

But she is playing a different character - it's established that through those 11 episodes, it is Jasmine, not Cordelia. If that's the case, then Amy Acker should only be described as portraying Fred and not Illyia. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 12:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Your recent editing history at Amber Rayne shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all you do on Wikipedia Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Danielle Marcot (Shining Time Station)

I was about to do a BLP prod for Danielle Marcot (Shining Time Station), not sure why I did DB-person, anyway upon looking around on Wikipedia for the name Danielle Marcot, it seems that goes as a redirect to that show, so would this become a redirect also? (that is if this survives the BLP prod) Wgolf (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good call, unless the added sourcing would justify a standalone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy abuse

RE: Corpus Christi Fire Department -- Sorry, I admit, sometimes I am abusive and put speedy deletion tags on new articles with no references. In the future, I will use the proposed deletion tag. Thank you for correcting me. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Startling Stories gallery

Hi -- this edit of yours, eliminating the gallery of non-free images, is reasonable, but I think a defense of the images can be made. You removed them a year ago and I replaced them after starting a discussion on the talk page. Can you comment there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

disruptive editing

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Aaliyah, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Mulaj (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mulaj

I am completely unimpressed when someone with a handful of edits contests an edit of mine by reverting without a meaningful edit summary and placing a completely unfounded, similarly unexplained warning template on my talk page. Telling me to "familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines", even though I have been editing here since 2006 and have roughly 200 times as many edits as you do, makes it impossible for me (or any reasonable user, I suspect) to take you seriously, and edit summaries where you without provocation call another editor "dumbass" [41] or "you ignorant fool" [42] hardly suggest an interest in rational discussion. I see no reason to give your opinions any weight right now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hotel notability to be discussed centrally, at one AFD i hope

Hi, I haven't looked into this to check anything, but it is asserted by another editor at Talk:Renaissance Barcelona Fira Hotel that you have nominated a bunch of hotels for speedy deletion. I arrive at the topic area from coming across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Barcelona Princess. That seems like a good forum to discuss notability standards.

Towards participating in the AFD, I began browsing about other Barcelona hotels and came across the speedy. If there are other speedy deletions out there could you possibly please cancel them, and contribute at the AFD instead? Also I suggest you don't open other AFDs, but rather mention the other marginal examples at the existing AFD. Just hoping for a centralized discussion that would really settle the area. If there is a centralized discussion somewhere, let me know, and let the AFD participants at the Hotel Barcelona Princess AFD know, too.

Thanks, --doncram 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Notability standards for businesses are clear, and hotels are businesses. The fact that hotels do business in buildings hardly distinguishes them from most other businesses. If you want to argue that hotels require some sort of special treatment that other businesses don't enjoy, the onus is on you to articulate a coherent, rational argument to that effect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your not wanting to go along with a polite request to discuss a bunch of separate items in one centralized discussion. Where coherent, rational arguments can be considered. But okay. I will oppose the speedy deletion requests that I can find in your edit history. --doncram 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Because you haven't produced a relevant argument. If you want to be disruptive, feel free, but if you don't produced a policy- or guideline-based argument as to how the businesses involved are significant I don't see any reason to treat such actions as WP:POINTY disruption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Is it impossible to give a better explanation than "rv"? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You ignored the first explanation, which isn't my problem. Given the personal insults you throw in my direction in edit summaries, you don't even deserve than much of an explanation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I only asked why you need to edit in every article I have edited in the last houre. Did you go through all my edits in order to ensure that I don't destroy too much, or how do I have to understand that. Btw, it must be terrible when showing other users that articles are missing is forbidden in the english wikipedia because of cosmetic (red) reasons. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Go away. Don't come back until you've reviewed the various extensive discussions on inserting non-notable/insignificant promotional/vendor awards into porn articles, from last year. When you edit against consensus and insult editors who edit in accordance with consensus, you're going to get reverted. It's that simple. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Spamery" is of course a very good, careful and insultless explanation to point on past discussions. I thought that users should be nice and sympathatic to newbies (and in this case I am one). I won't find any discussions in dusty corners on my own, but there is the possibility to give links in this project. I only started to get angry when you stated your perfectly understandable explanations. Could you now please explain to me what is your problem with "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject."?--84.163.8.233 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod

Just wanted to direct you to User:Scalhotrod/UserSandbox which contains the full list of drafts and the like. Some with work are usable but the most are probably best blanked or reviewed for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

RE:Extremely inappropriate speedy tagging.

Hello, I apologize for this situation and inform me hither policies that are different from Wikipedia in Spanish (my house wiki). I promise not happen again. Regards and Thanks. --File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 16:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Complex magazine is spam?

Please explain how the well recognized fashion magazine Complex is "spam citing itself", as you asserted in this edit. I see you have been doing that for other references to the same magazine in other articles, and such disruptive activity is surprising from an otherwise constructive editor. Please help me understand your reasoning — and I advise you to cease this activity until you do. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see an example of a genuinely reliable source treating Complex's barrage of clickbait lists as in any way noteworthy. I don't believe I've ever seen a Complex list cited on Wikipedia to a secondary source, only to the Complex site itself. I've spotted SPAs adding cites to such lists in bulk, and seen them added by obvious publicists. My conclusion has been that the overwhelming majority of the cites are added for promotional purposes, usually to drive traffic to the Complex site. It cleaned up its act a bit recently to facilitate its recent sale to a major publisher, but I have yet to see anyone take its editorial content, especially those wretched lists, terribly seriously, and there are way too many examples of redundant cites, alongside far more reliable sources, that seem clearly intended as promotional. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bread's Crumbs Speedy

This is the second time this has come up in as many weeks. The article is about a YouTube video. Youtube is not film. Youtube videos are eligible for A7 as web content. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that something is available on the web doesn't automatically make it "web content". The article asserts it's a film. You don't provide any sources for the claim that it's only available on youtube. A perfect PROD candidate, since the speedy claim requires more analysis and discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

How...do you provide sources substantiating that something is only available on youtube? There are no sources beside youtube. That's the point. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And that's why the speedy was inappropriate . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

... I don't mean to wiki lawyer, but it does seem to qualify under the "letter of the law". I'm not really arguing the point so much as I am befuddled by this seeming contradiction. Seems like a waste of a predetermined AfD. TimothyJosephWood 23:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider the analogy to the "obvious hoax" standard: there are articles where it's easy to establish that it's a hoax, but if it's not obvious on the face of the article, PROD or AFD is required. PRODding this would have been easy enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Knight

I de-prodded Tyler Knight because he won an award in 2009 that might be notable significant and well-known. Since the standards on which awards are good enough for WP:PORNBIO are so nebulous, I have no idea if that win proves notability and I have no objection if you want to take this article to AFD. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The PORNBIO standard isn't "notable", it's "well-known" and "significant". Merely notable was removed as a criterion years ago. The FPA isn't generally viewed as significant and has never been the basis for an AFD keep; even editors who generally oppose porn pereformer deletions have said things like " I've also yet to see any evidence offered that the Feminist Porn Awards qualify as 'a well-known and significant industry award'".(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Day, where a winner of the award was deleted). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WT:BIO about coming up with some sort of list of what consensus deems acceptable for criterion #1 of PORNBIO. clpo13_(talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-transsexualism feminists

I've nominated the category "Anti-transsexualism feminists" for renaming or deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#NEW_NOMINATIONS I've only found one use of the phrase as a category of feminists outside of Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the category for speedy deletion; it's a disparaging categorization that's incompatible with BLP sandards, and removed it from every article where the subject hasn't self-identified -- which is to say, all of them -- per consensus practice regarding categories. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please. Stop Wikipedia:Edit warring with me. Come Talk in Category talk:Anti-transsexualism feminists. After That do what you want. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violations are removed without discussion and are exempt from edit warring restrictions. At this point, multiple users oppose the existence of the category and only you support it. You need to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This Category is not BLP violations. I'm not mad or new comer. It's an accusation. If you have something to say, say it in Category talk:Anti-transsexualism feminists. Don't Edit war with me. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Category now deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

P. Pajouhesh, please see Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Definitions and scope's section on Sensitive categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Matt Farah

I was told that Youtube and IMDB should never be used as refs and only el's, hence why they were removed. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

They are often quite lousy and unsuitable for references, but there is no absolute bar at this time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well its not as bad as some articles I've seen where people put up a BLP prod that moment (I saw one go up for a NFL player within 2 seconds that had no sources yet and were added 2 minutes later even!) The only sources I really am iffy about are ones like Facebook, Twitter, ect. aka social networks. Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

G11

Could you have another look at this edit? This was not tagged A7 but G11. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeach, I pulled the wrong edit summary from the dropdown. But it's not irreparably promotional,and I've cleaned it up now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reverting of Kevin Sorbo

I gave a description on the Talk-page, why I think, my edit was appropriate. The commercial was a important first step of his careerer, the Kull-movie was not.--93.111.43.22 (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, my actions the other day were out of line and I would like to apologize for the message I left you - I acted in the heat of the moment and thoroughly regret it -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, apology accepted. No worries. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back pie!

WELCOME BACK!

• Hi, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I noticed the comment you appended to your name in an AFD I had edited. Administrators are overworked volunteers. I think of them in a category with citizens who participate in local government, and church vestry members they do a lot of hard work and get a lot of grief. But there is no quesiton that, too often, they pay too much heed to aggressive complaints made by intensely partisan but highly skilled wiki-lawyers. Hang in there.13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Amir Qayyum

The intro sums up all his experience, states that he is "Self motivated and ambitious", is a "Multi-cultural personality with understanding of many languages", has "leadership skills to effectively lead a team", is a "creative and visionary thought leader", etc. Besides that introductory paragraph, the article just is a list of his publications that looks like it is copied from his CV. I really think this is spam and would appreciate if you could have another look at this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• It just was deleted fro another reason, so the point is moot now. Just for the record, I also just found that it was literally copied from this person's own university page, so it also was a copyvio. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Airbiquity

Hi, the Airbiquity article was not accepted at AFC, it was simply moved to mainspace by the author in spite of multiple declines by AFC reviewers. If it really was accepted at AFC the AFC header would have been removed and the Talk page would contain at least the AFC WikiProject banner. The G11 speedy deletion criteria do not in any way refer to AFC processes anyway, so please re-evaluate the article in terms of the actual G11 criteria. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was created by User:TarynAdams and accepted by User:Bugmenn[43]. If AFC reviewers disagree about the significance of the subject, then it's generally outside the speedy range and calls for standard deletion process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugmenn is not an AFC reviewer and as I have already explained if it was really Accepted it would not still have had the AFC header and there would have been at least the AFC banner on the talk page. The edit history clearly shows that it was a plain move and not an AFC accept procedure. So I will now simply move it back to Draft-space because the move to mainspace was nt legitimate in the first place. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

AFC project practices/preferences aren't binding policy/guidelines. It's disputed enough to fall outside the speedy process. There are all sorts of legitimate ways to address the issues involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Racine carrée

Hello. It is French title so it should be under the title "Racine carrée". Eurohunter (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be right, but that's a content discussion, not a matter for speedy deletion. Removing the redirect wouldn't move the article to your preferred title anyway. You should start a discussion on the article talk page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Civility warning

I've been guilty of incivility as well (to preempt any pot/kettle defense you might want to use), but this series of summaries is pretty damn inexcusable, and I know you've been called on this before. Regardless of where you stand on waiting periods for speedy tags (and, as far as I know, there is no consensus requiring them), the language and accusations you deployed here are completely unacceptable. Whatever rules you think you're nobly defending, be aware that you can find your editing privileges curtailed for incivility alone; and short of that, you're hurting the community every time you escalate like this. —swpb^T 14:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Can your bullshit. WP:BITE is guideline, and actively hunting for pages just created by new and inexperienced users and tag-bombing them before the article creator has a decent opportunity to even finish their first draft violates it. It is plainly abusive, and does far more harm to the community than hurting the overly tender feelings of the abusive editors who prefer to drive new editors away. You might note that the editor whose treatment you complained of lied in a relevant edit summary (he deletion tag-bombed a new article six minutes after the first edit). You might also note that he rather gratuitously and officious slammed an article subject, a respected academic, for making minor corrections/updates to his biography and removed a link to the youtube page where the article subject posted various presentations related to his academic work. Actually providing links to such educational material, of course, is far less suitable for an encyclopedia than, say, links to a celebrity's twitter feed, I guess. There may be a strong clique here that believes that accurately characterizing misbehaviour by its members is worse than the misbehaviour itself, but I'm not part of that clique and have no respect for its members and advocates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's certainly not the response I was hoping to see. Maybe you need a concrete example of how your tone is counterproductive: the tone of your reply above has convinced me to start watching you closely, with an eye toward starting an AN/I if the problem does not improve; I don't think it would be hard to find support for an action. Keep in mind that your tone directly precipitated that; I hadn't been planning on any follow up before your reply. —swpb^T 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

He also forgot that the first edit was ~30 mins before my "delete bombing". Clubjustin (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"He" forgot nothing; you're misrepresenting the history. The article was created at 10:50. You tagged it at 10:56. That's not 30 minutes, no matter how many times you say it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Burns twins

Best known for playing one role and then retiring is not really a credible claim of significance. WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", my emphasis on multiple. While the character pair they portrayed had a significant effect on pop culture, the actresses themselves only played one other minor role and then retired. Opencooper (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself. Playing a character who "had a significant effect on pop culture" is a credible claim of significance. And a quick check of available sources shows examples of coverage over 30 years. That's plainly enought to defeat an ill-advised A7 nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Notability is not inherited. There have been countless actors who have played notable Shakespeare characters, but that does not make the actors themselves notable. And okay, mind sharing those before I take it to AFD? Because I wasn't able to find anything of significance. Opencooper (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You simply wrong, because it was the specific portrayal by the performers involved here that had the significant impact on popular culture. That's a claim of significance under NACTOR#3. You might begin by looking at the referenced coverage in the articles, which is the absolute minimum required by WP:BEFORE, rather than expecting me to do the work you're supposed to do when making a deletion proposal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I did do the BEFORE which is why I said I was planning to take it to AFD when I couldn't find anything of significance. Read my comment again. The reason I asked you was in case I missed anything, not because I'm expecting you to do my dirty work. Opencooper (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Burns‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page. I note you decline toprovide any policy support for your removal of my comments from a discussion. Insisting that comments caught up in an edit conflict before a discussion is closed may not be restored is hardly consistent with practice, and your responses, particularly the edit summary "Horse hockey" are neither civil nor consistent with WP:AGF. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

HW - I don't mean to "poke my nose in here" but Marnette is right - If you commented 5 mins after the close then fair enough but you've commented a whole 20 minutes AFTER the close ..... sorry but no one gets to !vote once an AFD's closed and yes unfortunately that includes you, If you are unhappy then drag me to 3rrno however that would probably be unwise,

My best advice would be for you to kindly move and forget the AFD,

Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Marnette is wrong, and so are you. As I commented at their talk page, my comment was posted well before the close, and caught up in a confict with Ponyo's comment. There's no justification for removing a comment in those circumstances, and it's certainly not policy. My phone rang, I clicked "save page" and answered it, had to deal with some urgent family business, and didn't immediately see the edit conflict. So please restore my comment, which I do intend to refer to in a related discussion, and simplify that one. Also note that Manette removed the relevant comment from their talk page with a rude edit summary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but Davey and Marnette are correct. The post was way after the closure, if your phone interrupted you then your phone made you miss the debate. This is not personal, we close discussions and we stop allowing comments at that point. HighInBC 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the comment was posted well before the close. It was caught up in an edit conflict. Could you point me to any policy or guideline that says that such a comment can't be reinstated? I've never seen this before, but I have seen the contrary, even for comments that were actually post-close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you might have intended to post before the closure, however you posted after. I get that you tried to before, but you did not succeed. It says right in the close template "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)". HighInBC 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, where is the policy dictating this outcome? As Davey accurately points out, it's common practice to allow comments caught up in conflict with the close to be reinstated. I've been in similar circumstances a few times, myself, and no one has ever objected before. Wikipedia is not a bureaucrfacy, IAR, etc, especially since nobody seems able to point to the governing policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the wording of the closure template not clear enough for you? Listen when you are going down the road and everyone is driving right at you, it is probably you who are in the wrong lane. If you want to challenge the closure you can go to WP:DRV, if you want to refer to your comment in a later discussion the diff is still there. HighInBC 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, and that's my point. Neither policy nor practice supports the absolutist position, and I've seen my position supported in past situations like this (though admittedly it's going to be hard for me to find the relevant diffs. Since I don't want the closure reversed, DRV is obviously not appropriate. I want the issues, which I raised in a timely fashion, to be visible. Nobody has provided a reason not to. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." And airing the relevant issues certainly improves the discussion, and there's no better place. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay it is clear we are not going to agree on this. IAR is not license to ignore what other editors are telling you, nor will it protect you from an edit warring block. If you like you can can go to ANI and complain about the removal of your comment, but I think you will just be told again what you are being told here. Your comment is in the history and you can link to it if you want. However you may not restore your comment in the closed deletion discussion. Sorry you think this is unfair, but closed means closed for everyone. HighInBC 21:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You know, almost every day I see someone appending a comment to a closed section at ANI or some other noticeboard. As Davey pointed out, editors have routinely been allowed to add edit conflicted comments first posted shoretly after the actual close of a deletion discussion. Closed doesn't mean closed for everyone, although it now seems in practice that it may mean "for everyone named Wolfowitz". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even know I was supposed to think of you differently than others. If there is some conspiracy against you I was not included. HighInBC 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I said they're generally allowed if it's around 5 minutes (and even then some admins can be funny over it), The point is even if you edit conflicted a second after the close you didn't then recheck ... You instead checked around 20 minutes after, The "for everyone named Wolfowitz" isn't the case at all - You could be Jimbo or even an Arbcom member - It'd still be declined regardless, Anyway what's done's done - Best we all just move on, Thanks & Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz posting personal attacks in edit summaries. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline of Speedy Deletion

Greetings Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . I created those article and I can nominate them for speedy deletion as I see fit. The songs are not notable. I created those articles years ago when I didn't know about WP:NSONG. Since you reverted the speedy deletion tags I added, I will either redirect those articles to its parent article or nominate them for deletion through AFd. Those articles are not notable and they need to be deleted.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You can nominate them, but you don't WP:OWN them. Repeated discussion and consensus has established that deletion under G7 is discretionary, not a privilege held by the author. Deletion of an article which has existed for several years and has many incoming links is almost always declined. Redirection is a standard editorial choice and may be appropriate, but it remains subject to discussion and consensus, not the original author's fiat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said I own them. I nominated those articles for speedy deletion and another user did the right thing by redirecting them. You, on the other hand, decided to vote speed keep despite the songs not being discussed in reliable sources. I can bet you probably didn't even do a Google search before voting.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, I agree. If you looked up the band I nominated, you wouldn't have removed the tag. Please, do a Google search before rving tags. As a long time editor, you should know this. Clubjustin (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Whatever the results of your Google search, and your confidence level in your own infallibility, there's no justification for your abusing a new editor who was making a good faith effort to write their first article. Nor, for that matter, was their any justification for your condescending, wholly-uncalled-for templating of a very-well-regarded academic who did nothing inappropriate, just made minor corrections to a recently posted bio of himself. And, if you had actually looked at the articles mentioned above, you would have seen that they were generally ineligible for G7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Trevannion

Greetings. What do you mean by incoming link?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Another editor got my point.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it looks more like they got mine. An "incoming link" refers to a page linked to the redirect; removing a redirect which has incoming links damages Wikipedia's utility for its readers by needlessly making navigation to related pages more difficult. In this case, it looks like the admin changed all the incoming links to point to the ultimate target before deleting, which resolves the problem. It's something you should have done before nominating. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

But there were no incoming links. That's why I cited it redirect as an unused redirect.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

When I removed the tag, there was at least one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI Closure

Hello, I'm letting you know that I have closed the discussion at ANI. The community has established consensus to place you on an interaction ban with SimonTrew. Please note that additional uncivil comments directed towards any editor may result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ring-necked snake lifespan

You are right, it's not A3, but it's not a Wikipedia page, too, so I'm not sure it should be preserved and discussed. The next step is How manay days has a week 7.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ross Campbell (vocal coach)

I am informing previous editors of this article that it is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Campbell (vocal coach). Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewel De'Nyle

You've dealt with editors trying to "out" this porn actress' name before. It's happening again. I've reverted twice, posted to the BLP Notice board and tried to engage the editor on the editor's talk page, all to no avail. Would you please look through the recent edits to this article. I'm at my wit's end. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Howard Stern Show staff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G4 (TV channel). 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) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Incidents#User_Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz.The discussion is about the topic User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you.Holanthony (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Mendelsohn

Hi there – thank you for your message. I don't think I am engaged in an edit war as I only made one request for deletion and I do not reverse any of the previous edits. I opened a thread on the Biographies Noteboard [[44]] as I felt the page was being used to progress an agenda and that any edits would be fruitless. Having viewed the page's edit history, though, I can totally see why you messaged me given what everyone else is up to, and I appreciate your thorough oversight of the entry. Best, SH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staggeredhermit (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I simply screwed up; that notice was supposed to go on another editor's talk page. Very sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Austin Stowell

I agree with other's notes on this talk page that many your edits are overly broad. I am restoring the deleted content. It is well sourced, relevant, and of interest. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, in the absence of any reference to applicable policies and guidelines, I'm going to give your opinion the weight it deserves, which is exactly none. I suggest you review BLP policy and familiarize yourself with such discussions as User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_86#BLP_gossip and heed both Jimbo's statement rejecting the "thinking that we should chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances" as well as such comments as "Single people usually date, and famous people usually date famous people, that's not something we should devote space to" [45] as well as the discussion there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you reference policy and then link to a talk page. What do you read in WP:BLP that would justifying this removal? It is not gossip or rumour; it has been well established and widely reported. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Policy is what we do, and it reflects consensus. Your attempt to laugh off consensus as "amusing" underlines the groundlessness of your stance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, you've missed my point. Again: What in WP:BLP justifies removal of something that is relevant, reliable, not rumour, and justified by multiple reliable sources? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the discussions I've cited. Not every WP:CONSENSUS is incorporated into the policy document, they can't be. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A report of ethnocentric edits

Dear User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Some users are trying to change the authentic and well-documented paper Feyli Lurs without any citations and scientific sources. Please have a look and help us to keep it safe. Regards--Shadegan (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Tahir ul Qadri page

I have added information which has been cited through 3rd party neutral soures, the page has very low level bias. If any information is incorrect or uncited, kindly edit that portion alone as wikipedia allows this to be done. Consider this a formal warning, as your reverts seem like deliberate attempsts to vandlise the page. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Call Me Joe.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Call Me Joe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to the LGBT reality page

You removed the entire Love and Hip Hop casts from the page for "nn"? as in non-notable? What makes you decide that? Most of the page is poorly referenced so it seems odd that you decided to focus on those cast members in particular (all of whom are people of color which makes me question your motives). I will find the sources and add them but to use "nn" as an excuse to erase so much information is absolutely ridiculous and ignorant. In particular the gay storyline in season 2 of LHH Hollywood was very heavily publicized and were a major part of the season. Pinchofhope (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP strictly prohibits unsourced/unreferenced claims about living people's sexuality. Period. As for your gratuitous accusation of racism, it's plain as day that I was reviewing the article starting at the top, in one-year blocs. To convert that into an accusation of racism makes me question your good faith, intellectual honesty and competence. Go away. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. Your signature did not show up here [46]. Just thought you might want to know. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Requests for closure - Warning.

Please allow this to serve as a warning - do not edit other users' comments on pages like Requests for Closure. If you feel the other person is violating policy, put a warning on their talk page and ask them to change their comment, and if they do not do so, report them to a noticeboard. Furthermore, remember to Assume Good Faith - I read both the AfD discussion and Erpit's original closure request comment. As a completely uninvolved editor, I saw no evidence of canvassing in his comment, and given the way the AfD has gone, it's entirely reasonable to request closure with no consensus. I am going to re-revert your edit, and if you choose to edit Erpit's comment again, I will immediately file a report with WP:ANI that you are failing to assume good faith and also violating guidelines against changing other editors' comments. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Competence is required when editing Wikipedia, even on user talk pages. Citing a guideline regarding article talk pages as though it applies to noticeboard posts betrays either extraordinary careless or a lack of competence. Removing disruptive text from noticeboard posts is allowed, and it's common practice to simply close and hat such discussions. Requests for closure are not used to lobby for an involved editor's preferred outcome in contested discussions; it is evident from reviewing even just the currently open requests that this is simply not done. WP:Noticeboards, which actually governs the page involved, does not include anything like the language you mistakenly cite. Even if that page were applicable, it allows the removal of "prohibited material", which covers use of impermissible lobbying and a page where well-established practice requires neutral requests. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The guideline I cited DOES NOT only apply to article talk pages. Re-read the Talk Page Guidlines, specifically the introduction, which states: "When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually apply." and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." Furthermore, canvassing is not one of the behaviors which are allowed to be removed, only things like personal attacks, outing, copyright violations (ie comments with legal implications) can be removed, and finally, your accusation of canvassing is not supported by Erpert's behavior, so your editing is not justified. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You are dead wrong, and seizing on a minor phrasing error doesn't vitiate your error. You're also ignoring such exceptions to the guideline you cite as "Removing prohibited material" and "Removing harmful posts". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Chloë Grace Moretz

Hi, I need your help, it is about the article Chloe Grace Moretz, I can't find the actual citation source her relationship with Brooklyn Beckham has officially ended. I had the actual citation source from the newspaper website called the "Toronto Sun" and there is an article that Chloe and Brooklyn have officially split and someone has kept on removing the citation from an actual mainstream newspaper website. We know that sources from a gossip website is not allowed that is a shadowy source and unknown claims or rumors. So, could you go to Google and type in the search "Chloe Moretz Brooklyn Beckham split" and find the citation source from an actual mainstream newspaper website, but no sources from a gossip website, if you found the mainstream newspaper source. Go to the Chloe Grace Moretz article and added it for a citation source from an actual newspaper website or maybe the Toronto Sun website and no gossip website sources and while you're in Google with the search if you see the that is all gossip websites sources about Chloe and Brooklyn's split or maybe Chloe or Brooklyn's Facebook pages on their annoucement of their separation. Go to the Chloe Grace Moretz article and remove the portion from outdated gossip from it's "personal life". It's the only way to it's current source up to date on Chloe Grace Moretz article. Do your best. Thanks for your help. 2001:569:70DD:7500:1DD1:2603:8DF4:9E32 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Thorpe Photo

Thank you for correcting my error in adding the photo of Jeremy Thorpe to the United Kingdom general election, February 1974. Since the photo you reverted is the same one used in his Wikipedia article, I wanted to make it is acceptable for use in Wikipedia altogether, because if not, it might to need be nominated for deletion.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Thorpe is no longer living, and no free images are apparently available, it's acceptable to use a nonfree image in the infobox of his biography (or at the top, if there were no infobox). However, outside of the bio, there are very few circumstances where such an image can be used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Although I rarely add photos to Wikipedia articles, I will keep this experience in mind for future reference.--TommyBoy (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusing edit

See here Why would one of his girlfriends be notable but another not? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that the current relationship should be included, but past "relationships" aren't included absent some showing of a significant impact on the subject's life or career. Left to my own devices, I'd expunge a lot more of the "currently dating" stuff, as most of it proves insignificant. The phrase itself is next to meaningless, as it's used here for everything from routine social relationships between college students to statements like "Ally Actress is currently dating Mark Musician, the father of her three children". It doesn't communicate encyclopedic information. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed It's all equally irrelevant, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Update of the Template:Baku Metro color

Greetings.

Could you update the Template:Baku Metro color which was created far back in 2012, by adding the purple color in this template alongside the red and green colors, because Baku Metro has opened a third metro line in April 2016, whose official color is purple.

I tried to link Template:S-line in the Avtovağzal (Baku Metro) and Memar Əcəmi-2 (Baku Metro) articles of the new Line 3 and in the Memar Əcəmi (Baku Metro) article of Line 2, but failed as they appear green.

I ignorantly thought I could just add a color bar in the template, but I messed it up and reverted my mess up in the template, because I discovered that I know nothing about modules and other such technical aspects. Can you fix this please, if you know how to do this?

Thank you.

Artoxx (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Can you help with your experience??

Can you take a look here and maybe help solve the "problem" with your experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Thomas_Woods Thnx in advance! --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles Laughton

Hi. Please stop reverting this article; there is an active discussion on the talkpage regarding the part you are removing. Please participate there rather than just removing stuff you don't like. Bjelleklang - talk 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please pay attention rather than making knee-jerk comments on my, or any other editor's, talk page. Multiple editors have objected to the inclusion of the content at issue, which is on its face sensationalist garbage. A single user wishes to restore it. That editor, User:Holanthony, has a long history of problematic edits to biographies. See, for example, this ANI discussion [47], where Holanthony made similarly spurious complaints about reversion of their improper edits, only to have the complaint WP:BOOMERRANG and the discussion closed with a warning "that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions". Sourcing biographies with tabloid garbage is unacceptable, whether the article subject is living or dead. Supporting an editor who plainly "clearly lack[s] a basic understanding of a number of polices (not limited to just BLP). Including accusations of child molesting against non-notable people in a BLP? When no charges were even brought?" (to quote just one comment in that ANI) is particularly unacceptable for an administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1. There were no "warnings" issued as a result of the ANI post. Please get you facts straight and stop lying. Holanthony (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The admin who closed the discussion said, in their closing statement, "Holanthony is warned that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions. The warning was placed on Holanthony's talk page here [48]. So, Holanthony, given the lack of integrity demonstrated by your statement above, you are unwelcome here. I have expunged the remainder of your post, since you have shown your statements are unworthy of belief. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

DRV

Hi HW. I just added a comment at [49] and given you are the only one to comment there, I thought I'd ping you about it as it was an issue not previously discussed. Honestly, I'm not sure if the issue I've raised is one others would think relevant, but I thought I'd at least make you aware of it. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 October

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

• On the Amber Heard page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walter Ernsting 1965.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walter Ernsting 1965.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Jimbo

Hi, You have a point in that we shouldn't add statements without sourcing them and I should've known better than to reinstate it however I want to ask a question - As you stated "Per Jimbo Wales" in the edit summary - My question is do you take anything he says seriously ? ...,
We all respect different editors etc etc however Jimbo's statements don't hold much weight considering he's known to be the type of person where for example he wants civility to be improved and yet in the same thread he cannot and will not do anything about it,
What I'm trying to say is Jimbo's statements mean nothing to no one here so it may not be a good idea to say "per him" (ofcourse if you said "per policy" then great I understand and agree but "per Jimbo" ... not so much...),
Ofcourse if you believe Jimbo speaks sense etc etc then that's your opinion and something I'll respect but not many people really take him nor what he has to say seriously so you may want to say per policy or whatever but just wanted to point this out,
Anyway have a great day and happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

BLP resources/guidelines

Instead of just reverting my changes and citing vague reasons, why don't you point me in the right direction of BLP resources so I can get a better grip at editing? I'm sure you like educating people. Mind showing me? SPNKs (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You cited two self-published blogs for claims regarding a living person. It hardly gets more basic than that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Also I doubt you have seen the film, it's so obvious a body double was used (the camera even does not show her face, just focuses on the bare chest). Jane Curtin wouldn't bare her chest. She's a very modest, humble, and reserved person. So that information on the "self-published blogs" makes sense. SPNKs (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinions on what "makes sense" don't entitle you to violate WP:BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my opinion. Thanks for the link though, it's a shame the information is correct. SPNKs (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Weapon X/Marvel Specials

Hi, you proposed the deleted of my overview/list page which included non-free/fair-use-rational pictures. I somehow forgot that the inclusion of these pictures are not allowed on user pages. The problem is, I still need my list and want to keep it (without the pictures included), but I didn't have time to make a backup before deletion and I cant retrieve the source code from history cause the whole page was deleted. Is there a way of retrieving the original source code? (I won't use the images again.) Greetings - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 18:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for an admin to email you a copy of the source code, so you can clean it up and restore it to your userspace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I contacted the admin who deleted the side and he send me the source code. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 21:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Special"

In regard to part of this comment you made, "not a 'special', whatever that means": My meaning was television special, basically a break from regular programming (i.e. pornography in this case). I suppose that is technically incorrect as the video in question didn't air on a tv channel. Leaving a note here instead of at the AfD, as not to clutter the discussion there with something off point, and as this isn't a reply to the substantive part of your comment.

On a side note: I had a little trouble loading and navigating this page due to its size, hence I added the {{Archiveme}} template at the top. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Prinzzess

Hello, I need you help on the article Prinzzess a registered user by the names of User:Trivialist and User:Holanthony has kept on adding poorly sourced content via WP:NOTTABLOID, I use the edit summary by typing WP:NOTTABLOID and No reliable current source. Could you review the article Prinzzess and make sure no poorly sourced contant will be added via WP:NOTTABLOID and If the article does continue adding relationship sourced content. Remove it and warn User:Trivialist never adding relationship soucred content because there is no current source for the relationship. In order to do that, please add the article Prinnzess into your watchlist so no users going to be re-adding sources. This is an urgent message. Thanks for the message and talk to me fast as you can. Again, Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 November

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

• On the Prinzzess page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Travis Scott article

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, see this matter with Bleeding thumb (talk · contribs). What is your opinion on it? How should I proceed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that the editor has been blocked as a sock (he quite clearly was one). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Dating news removal

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

As you indicated there is a consensus through many prior discussions to not include "relationship" reports that fails to demonstrate significance in someone's life or career, do you happen to have link(s) to those discussions, so I can use them as references for future? I personally dislike these dating news a lot, but from experience, everytime it gets erased out of someone's bio, someone will eventually add it back. Thanks so much.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I usually cite this discussion [50] from Jimbo's talk page, usually quoting Jimbo to the effect that "we should [not] chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances". In more extended discussions, I also cite the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for the point that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". While such content is often added back, my impression has been that about 95% of the time either the removal sticks or, much less often, an editor finds appropriate sourcing to justify inclusion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 December

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

• On the Keith Olbermann page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on Chloë Grace Moretz's Tabloid Gossip

Hi Hullaballoo, I was about to remove a portion of gossip per WP:NOTTABLOID. But it's kept on re-added. The citation gossip source is not allowed per WP:NOTTABLOID. Could you do me a favor, I want you to go to Chloe Grace Moretz's talk page and there is a question on the article's talk page. Option A: Is to add a possible citation source for her breakup with Brooklyn Beckham and Option B: Is to remove a portion of outdated citation source gossip under "Personal life" per WP:NOTTABLOID. There is the link right there. All Wikipedians must have a majority consensus. I hope you make a decision on Chloe Grace Moretz's article talk page. Thanks. 209.53.181.152 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

209.53.181.152, please read WP:CANVASS immediately; with this request, you are demanding a "majority consensus" comprising one editor. Meantime, I have replied on the article's talk page, where this discussion belongs. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of your stalking

I added you to my Stalking tracker. But best of all, I learned to develop a bot detect reversed edits by stalkers like you, even if you try to mask your edits with multiple accounts. --Gstree (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: cut it out - you continuously editing this section is getting disruptive. If you have an issue or believe your edits are being stalked please raise this at WP:ANI or drop me a message on my talk page -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: No need to, I trust my own bots more than Wikipedia users in general. There are too many stupid people in this world. --Gstree (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: What kind of bot is this? Has it been approved by the Bot Approvals Group? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thank you for being supportive. Perhaps I should suggest my code to any of the bot examples. Can you please guide me? --Gstree (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: Up to you. The crux of my message was that you cannot run a bot on Wikipedia without it getting approved first, so please don't do that. In the meantime, constantly leaving HW messages is just going to make any previous disagreements worse, so it's best to leave them alone -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I won't. Yes, I leave this discussion for a dead end then. --Gstree (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gstree (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Gupta family photo NFCC#8 failure

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I noticed you deleted the photograph of the Atul Gupta from the Gupta family article arguing that it fails NFCC#8. I am inclined to take your word for it but I would also like you to please expand on how you feel it fails NFCC#8? Thanks, Discott (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"To illustrate" is not a valid NFCC use rationale. To meet NFCC#8, an image must add meaning beyond what can be conveyed by text alone. Here, the image adds nothing -- the claim of a "close relationship" is not even supported by being seated together at a public function. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

chrissy greetings

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Mwiaowy xmas Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI, part deux

Hey there,

I mentioned your efforts (thanks!) in keeping Kay Parker free of unsourced material in an ANI post regarding the IP user who keeps reverting it. If you want to chime in, the link is here: [51] K_arunamon ^Talk 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

what's wrong with character names of Black Easter echoing famous politicians of that era

Hi there,

What was wrong with the section in Black Easter with the echoing of famous politicians of that era in the names of major characters of the novel.

The similiarities are actually there. You have to be blind not to see them.

Endo999 (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source making the connection(s). Your own conclusion, based on a primary source (the novel itself) (valid though it may seem) isn't enough. See WP:NOR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I got some primary sources that back up some of my assertions about character names. I put some of the information back in the article, with the references attached. Endo999 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk protected

Hi HW, just a quick note letting you know I've semi'd your talk page for two days -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Same again (two days) -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

anna faris

Whats with the attitude? seems like an ongoing thing with you and deleting valid updates to pages just going through your talk page.

I updated Anna Faris with a story, i was told that it didnt contain a reference but to upload again with something from a proper source so i uploaded again with a Ref from a National Newspaper. Your use of caps and telling me not to undo the deletion is taking it a bit far considering others told me how to upload the edit properly with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E28:C400:95ED:E596:C4AF:5036 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop dissembling and feigning wounded indignation. You cut-and-pasted copyrighted content from a self-published blog, b\violating copyright policy and WP:BLP. Nobody told you that was permissible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you going round in circles citing a different reason for the removal each time. Not very professional. Every time i sort what the issue is you cite a completely unrelated reason. Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E28:C400:349A:5353:E272:4254 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

National film Registry

Why do you keep deleting images from the National Film Registry page? Some of these images are in the public domain, and all of them are featured in other Wikipedia pages having been previously uploaded and licensed. I have worked very hard to create that section of the page and your deletion of so much is hurtful to me.

I have also not been warned several times over the past few weeks. DeaditeWheatley (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As I posted to your talk page, those images were grossly noncompliant with WP:NFC and related policies. The fact that a nonfree image may be used on one page in no way indicates it may be used on any other. You should also read WP:NFCCE carefully, which sets out the policy governing these image removals: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 January

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

• On the Amy Ried page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Enforcement has been lodged

A request for enforcement has been lodged against you at WP:AE Holanthony (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Pete Davidson

Thanks for this You're doing God's work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

Not sure if I did this right, but you may want to see Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/TTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.201.254 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Governor Frank O'Bannon

I saw you have undid my edit on the Indiana gubernatorial election, 2000. All I did was add a picture of Democratic nominee and eventual winner Frank O'Bannon. Given that he had a picture on his page, I took the liberty of taking it and adding it to the election page. Would you please explain why this is problematic? I would really appreciate it. Count Awesome (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a non-free image. Nonfree images can only be used, per WP:NFCC#8, when "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Here, understanding that O'Bannon was the candidate can be conveyed perfectly by text alone. Also, under NFCC policy, the fact that an image is used in one article does not mean that it may be used in other articles; every time you add an nonfree image to an article, you must provide a valid article-specific use rationale that independently justifies its use in that particular article. The existing use of the image in question was justified under image use standards which allow the use of a nonfree image of a deceased person only in their biography. See WP:NFCI#10. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Balbir9005/Mary queen

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Balbir9005/Mary queen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject is a porn star, and it's not disparaging. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shock sites

Think you could discuss your reasoning on the talk page? The inclusion criteria on this page has been a topic of many discussions over the years, and your presumption that an entry in a list is automatically non-notable, regardless of sourcing, if it does not have an article of its own, is an arbitrary and exclusionary practice. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ashlynkapriella

Could you edit my wiki page? Ashlynkapriella (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair use book cover in author bio

Hi. Regarding your deletion of a fair use non-free book cover image: where the copyright holder wishes to give permission for image of book cover to be used, how should he proceed to indicate this, and which template do I use? Thanks Mramoeba (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of image rationale

I explained in the revert of Arlie Neaville that this a non-free image but is allowed to be used as it fits ALL criteria listed under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, not just #2. Your rationale for the second removal was "Unquestionable violation NFCC2 (respect for commercial opportunities) is necessary but, on its own, grossly insufficient!" - I don't see an "unquestionable violation", your first removal was reverted in good faith and I explained my rationale, but I don't see your argument for removal, especially for a second time. I would appreciate if you would self-revert this edit. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, not a word in your argument or on the file page making a case as to why we would be unable to obtain a free image of a living person who is identified as a currently (or at least recently) active performer. That's pretty much an open-and-shut-case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"? I could not locate a free image of this person, but if you can by all means please replace it and tag with this template. Otherwise, I disagree this is an "open and shut" case, and I implore you to take this up at Wikipedia:Files for discussion, per the guide to image deletion ("For images claimed under fair use...which do not meet the above but may not meet non-free content criteria for other reasons, list at Wikipedia:Files for discussion according to instructions there), as this removal has been challenged. Please do not remove it until others have commented on the matter. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Nonfree images in living people are subject to a virtually conclusive presumption of replaceability under WP:NFC#UUI#1 and the WMF licensing policy. No prior discussion for removing such an image is required, and such images should not be restored without consensus that NFC requirements are satisfied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You do know what edit warring is, right? Reverting you twice, with messages on your talk page explaining my actions, does not qualify as 3RR. Don't template me with "edit warring" unless you do a little reading up on the matter. Garchy (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't post crap on my talk page. Edit warring does not require a 3RR violation. Stop wasting my time arguing about NFC issues you plainly do not understand, in defiance of specific wording in the relevant policy pages! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. You ever think of playing nice, or genuinely assuming good faith in people? You seem to hold a lot of hostility, but that's nothing I can help you with. Have a good day! Garchy (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Basil Rigg

Hi there. Your initial deletion had the edit summary of "nonfree image in BLP infobox". Is it's positioning in an infobox the specific issue, or are you against non-free images in BLP articles as a whole, even with a NF rationale? I couldn't find any mention of infobox restrictions on any policy or talk pages, so I reverted. After your non-specific "against policy" re-revert, I again read the page and believe that a photograph of a sportsman during his notable era clearly fits in the first exemption in WP:NFC#UUI, more than if a free photo could be obtained of a 90 year old man. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Both. This issue has been argued to death over performer images, and there's no exception to NFC requirements for performers in their prime. The exception you claim is limited to people who are notable primarily due to their physical appearance, and that's obviously not the case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

URAA sucks. It's a public domain image. Enjoy Textopedia. The-Pope (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Album cover fair use?

You recently removed this image [52] from this article [53]. Under the fair use guidelines it seems this album cover would be acceptable to use on Wikipedia? This is not accurate; is it; since the image is used in an article? "This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles" I am no expert on this area so thought I'd check with you. An editor emailed me and asked me if I knew anything about this. I don't know much but you probably do. Many thanks for your assistance on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

While the album cover would be acceptable in an article about the album itself, our nonfree use standards are more restrictive than general fair use, and generally prohibit the use of fair use images of record covers in musician bios. See the annotation to WP:NFCI#1, which states that, for Wikipedia purposes, such images should not be used "when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK thank you. I understand the distinction.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

Chester Brown

Is it really a good idea to remove this image? Louis Riel (comics) is Brown's best-known work—I figured a panel demonstrating his style that also tied in with his politics would be better than a random image. Doesn't it just need a better-written rationale? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about which of the two images would be preferable; I elected to leave the other one in because it not only demonstrated visual style but also carried a caption directly commenting on his dialogue, which is more closely related to his work than a comment on his politics. If you choose to substitute the one you prefer, I hope you'll write a new caption that's more related to the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Non-free lede image in BLP"

• [54]

Is there a new policy that says BLPs can't use non-free images? Deryck C. 10:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

From WP:UUI#1: "The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. . . . Pictures of people still alive". There are exceptions when taking a new free picture as a replacement is not considered possible, but that is generally limited to prisoners serving life or very lengthy sentences, fugitives, and the permanently institutionalized. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Deryck C. 15:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on Playboy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995&action=history Hoping you will agree this page should be removed entirerly. None of those sources are even remotely accurate. thank you. Richterer11111 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Austin

It's in a section about the album, being used to identify the album? How is it not fair use? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fair use, but NFCC standards are more restrictive than fair use and album images in musician bios generally aren't allowed, per WP:NFCI#1, where the annotation in the guideline states "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Drury

Hi. Can you please explain your edit to this page removing the pictures? You state that there are "multiple replaceable nonfree images", but I'm unsure how you concluded they were nonfree? They were taken by the athlete and posted on her Instagram page. Thanks. Cizzlewizzle (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The infobox image comes from the USA Gymnastics website, which carries a copyright notice on its homepage. The second image indeed comes from Drury's Instagram page, but does not carry any license/release. Copyright is presumably held by its photographer. Both images are accurately identified as nonfree on their file description pages. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RFU files

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If you come across any file which clearly fails NFCC#1, you can tag it for speedy deletion using {{rfu}} per WP:F7. Removing the file and orphaning it per WP:F5 means seven days are given to resolve the issue and the file can simply be de-orphaned by re-adding the file to an article. Tagging it as RFU, however, means that only two days are given to sort things out and the file will be reviewed by an admin regardless of whether it's an orphan. The RFU can of course be contested by the uploader, but this will be reviewed by an admin as well. In addition, the RFU notification template is also a little more specific to NFCC#1, which may make it easier for the uploader to understand the problem at hand. Of course, in some cases, it might not be clear where WP:FREER applies, and in those cases maybe FFD is necessary.

Finally, if a RFU image is being used with a caption, you can add {{deletable image-caption}} to the file's markup in the article. The reviewing admin typically goes around removing the file's syntax and captions when they delete RFU files, so you don't have to do lots of manual cleanup after the fact.

These are just suggestions which might help to avoid any confusion on behalf of the uploader and make it a little clearer to them why the file does not satisfy WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Clayton Luckie

Based on your talk page history, you seem to be engaged in a pattern recently of removing images from pages under questionable grounds without any forewarning. Just recently you removed an image that I added to the page for Clayton Luckie which had been left up without problem for over four years on the basis that it "fails NCFF#8" with no further explanation. I disagree with your assessment. NCFF#8 states that such images may be used "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I feel the image illustrates the situation described in a graphic way that text alone cannot and its removal is detrimental to the quality of the article. Unless you can provide sufficient argument otherwise, I intend to restore the image. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you restore the image without achieving consensus for your (rather flimsy) argument that an image of an arrest taking place is necessary to properly understand that the article subject had been arrested, I will remove it again and, if necessary, seek edit warring sanctions. No "forewarning" is required for removing NFCC violations. And I suggest you review the actual outcomes of the complaints you mention, which you obviously have not bothered to do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Miss Hayman

Hi,

I notice you had removed the photo I added to Damaris Hayman's page - File:Damaris Hayman.jpg. Just to say I've put it back with a (hopefully) improved rationale. There are still obvious problems with the file, but I'm hoping you will be lenient. Anyway, it's up to you. Beryl reid fan (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Cayley glider photo

I have opened a discussion on the article Talk page about the image you deleted. Looking forward to your participation there. DonFB (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Coco Star

File:Singer and songwriter Coco Star.jpg has been there since 2012 and does not tagged as non-free nor a copyright vio. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history at List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: ). Thank you. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hitomi Tanaka

This is not related to any previous articles. I sourced every piece of information from reputable places. I am not sure if this is some type of bias against the subject matter, but there are no grounds to delete this based on what was posted.

She is notable because:

- She has appeared in over 430+ films,

- She has a photobook released of her(Japanese ISBN included)

- There are sources from Japan and America listed including The New York Daily News, Score, Playboy, Mondo TV and TV Tokyo.

- She has multiple wikipedia's in other languages.

- She has made appearances on television shows and I have cited two of them

Also worth noting is that she is a porn star, and she's going to have limited mainstream media events due to it. Places like CNN and the Wall Street Journal in America are not going to be talking about porn, yet alone individual stars, and it's no different in Japan.

She also passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG, which were the main arguments used against her last time and if she doesn't pass PORNBIO, I have no idea who would.

You have also said that this is too close to the original article. Non-admins cannot see the original article, so I have no idea what went on there. But all people of something are going to have pages look the same. Ron Jeremy isn't going to have a page that looks like Lance Armstrong, but Lance's page and the page of Alberto Contador are going to look similar, because they are in the same field. She is also going to have the same career and accomplishments as listed before, because that's her career. She's not going to suddenly have cycling results on her page or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

{{subst:DRVNote|Hitomi Tanaka]} ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Images removal rationale

If you'd have given a clearer explanation for the removal of those two images rather than the blunt, ambiguous "redundant non-free image", I'd have agreed with your subsequent explanation ("violation of NFCC#3a") and neither of us would have undone the other's edit. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Images removed from article

Greetings. You removed the images from the article Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (blackjack). You might want to participate in the related discussion started here. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Album cover orphaned

Your [edit] orphaned the file File:Brettina CD cover.jpeg on grounds that it was a non-free image, resulting its deletion. However, a reference to the image file exists on an [archived copy] of the singer's official page, indicating that a version of the image was released as CC-BY-SA, and the image itself is archived on [another page] with the CC-BY-SA notation. — Steve98052 (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The image I removed was identified as nonfree. If you can document that a different version of the image was released under a valid free license -- and ordinarily the copyright to an album cover is held by the label, not the performer -- you may upload that image to Commons and use it in the bio. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

About the copyvio tags

Hi. Regarding your edits to File:Hiroki-Morinoue-Night-Views-C3.jpg and File:Hiroki-Morinoue-Night-Views-T2.JPG, there are two things you might be unaware of:

1. The tag that applies is actually F9, not G12.
2. For both, you must provide at least one source URL so that administrators have valid proof that the page is indeed a copyright infringement before deleting the page in question. If you don't, the CSD will most likely be declined.

Please keep these tips in mind when tagging another copyvio. Thanks! 2605:6000:ED08:DD00:49FD:A4F2:9713:DCC1 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Benico del Toro

Sorry but you where the last established editor on the page. Thanks to an Australian IP who edited the page there is now an internet rumor that BDT is going to be a Fett in the last Jedi. It has since been added the guy who spotted it. I have changed it. Other than that I don't know what to do.

A kitten for you!

Sorry for experiencing all the bullying here. Internet should be a safe place for everyone where we are respectful and kind to each other, a place where all ideas are valued based on arguments, just like in real life.

MariaOlteanu (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Harisu

Regarding your removal of the image, I respectfully disagree. Please take it to Wikipedia:Files for discussion if you still feel otherwise where it can be discussed properly. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

James Blake Miller Marlboro Marine photo

Per bot notification that it was to be deleted as a result of being removed from the article, I have restored it to the article but in the section about the photograph itself, per the FUC, where it accompanies sourced commentary about the image.

I note your removal rationale was the same as the one you provided for Cory Maye (a picture I uploaded years ago when the article was created), that we may not use non-free images in BLP infoboxes.

This is sort of a new wrinkle on the NFCC to me ... I had always thought that it was permissible to do so if it was unlikely that a free image could be created, and in Maye's case I thought that applied since he was in prison at the time and thus not available for photography. I'm not contesting it here because the whole case was so long ago and Maye's appearance isn't the source of his notability, but I still would like to know exactly where this is spelled out in policy.

Further, I wonder if we might not make an exception for people whose notability derives from being the subject of a photograph? Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is my understanding too: " I had always thought that it was permissible to do so if it was unlikely that a free image could be created". I have recently restored an image that was taken down by Wolfowitz for this reason. Regards, Soulparadox (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The governing WMF licensing policy resolution and en-wiki's nonfree use policy quite explicitly describe "portraits of living notable individuals" as a canonical example of replaceable nonfree images. As the WMF resolution states, it can't be circumvented by an exception created by "local policies of any Wikimedia project"; therefore, we can't create an exception (via policy or practice)"people whose notability derives from being the subject of a [nonfree] photograph". The standards for when a free image can't be created are quite constraining, and have been pretty much limited in practice to the permanently institutionalized, fugitives, and those under very lengthy terms of incarceration. Cory Maye fell under that latter criterion when the image was originally uploaded, but since his death sentence was later lifted and he was released from prison, it no longer held, and the image had to be removed. The image Soulparadox restored, of Jack Picone is an obvious NFCC violation -- the subject is alive, a reasonably public figure, and currently a lecturer at a notable university. The use rationale does not even claim that the image is nonreplaceable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarity, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk). What is the best option in this case? To obtain permission from the photographer, as this is a possibility? Regards,Soulparadox (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rianne van Rompaey. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Steranko

Hi, Hullaballoo. Just asking: Given that the illustration of Steranko History of Comics is the article's only example of the prolific cover-illustrator's book-cover art, and that it also illustrates a book he wrote, it seems it would be as much fair use as anything else in the article, particularly since it additionally demonstrates him as a publisher. Perhaps in this case, it might be worth reconsidering. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. But four illustrations in the article were too many. The other three had use rationales based on supporting particular aspects of the artist;s style, which is a generally acceptable use rationale, while the rationale for this one was simply as illustrating the existence of a project he published -- which on its own is not an acceptable NFCC violation. This one, therefore, had the weakest use rationale. Also, all the illustrations come from a brief (if prolific) early part of his career, and if a book cover illustration was included, I'd think a later one (at least the mid-70s) would be a better choice than another late-sixties-type illustration. I wouldn't mind seeing that Spyman cover go, though, as its value as a style illustration is pretty low, with a Brackett or Shadow cover added further down as a more representative example of his cover illustration style. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you make a reasonable case, though I think it's still a grey area. I guess I'll go along. And it's true, given the choice, a paperback cover, for which Steranko is known and which displays a different, painted style, does make great sense. I would advocate for the Spyman cover in that it illustrates Steranko's first published comic-book work, an inset that shows so much more sophisticated a drawing technique that even that of the estimable George Tuska on the rest of the cover.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

 Warning In general editors are free to remove comments from their talk page. They are also, with some exceptions, free to bar other editors from commenting there. However your recent edit summary is a flagrant violation of WP:NPA and is unacceptable. Further such abuses may result in administrative sanctions. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL when interacting with other editors, even when you are in a vigorous disagreement. Civility is among the most important cornerstones of the project, without which it would quickly collapse. Thank you for your contributions but again, please try to keep cool when when you are sorting out differences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"nonfree image outside articlespace"

I noticed that you removed an image from Wikipedia:WikiDwarf, because it was a "nonfree image outside articlespace". I'm not familiar with this concept. If you don't mind, could you explain what that means or send me to a WP protocol page? Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC, which is policy, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace" (with a small number of exceptions for technical/maintenance pages). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested full protection for Jane Morgan

You may be interested in this protection request for the Jane Morgan article. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Joyce Hoffman.jpg

It would be better if you had read the file documentation first, before filing a dispute. No clearer example of the Retired individual exception could be found, as I hope you will agree. Please withdraw your dispute. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. She is notable because of her athletic achievements (which, by the way, aren't evidenced in this image). She isn't notable because she looked good in a swimsuit a few decades ago. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the actual file, and article:

Title: Women's world surfing champion Joyce Hoffman standing with longboard in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., 1964 --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

She's not notable for standing next to surfboards, either. The exemption you're invalidly claiming applies only when the person's appearance is the primary focus of their notability, which isn't the case here. Not even arguably. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please Help

Hello Hullaballoo,

As you can see from my unintended mistake of uploading the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jude_Demorest.jpg, I am a fairly new Wikipedia Editor.

So could you please help me find a freely licensed photo of Jude Demorest from the internet?

Or, you could educate me on how to search the internet in general for freely licensed media. That way, I can replace the image in question with a freely licensed image.

Thank you!
Siva

--Sivabhaskar (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello ???? Are you there? --Sivabhaskar (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Karen Greenlee drawing.png

Hi! Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Greenlee&type=revision&diff=770124368&oldid=768946066 -- can you just point out for me what policy exactly you're enforcing here? I've tried to read through NFCC and nothing jumped out at me w/r/t disallowing fair-use images in BLP infoboxes. Is it an infobox thing? Was the fair use rationale not up to some standards? Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say to see generally to see discussions like this (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Replaceable fair use for retired, no longer publically active living individuals. The main purpose of the BLP infobox image is to serve as a general illustration of the person who is the central subject of the article; outside of a few very limited exceptions, nonfree images are not allowed for this purpose. It's not unusual, though not really consistent with best practice, for an example of the work of a visual artist to appear in an infobox when no free image of the artist is available, but moving such images to the part of the article they actually illustrate isn't a high enforcement priority. Even treating that drawing as a self-portrait, it couldn't be used to illustrate the subject herself; she isn't notable as an artist, and her art isn't discussed in the article; and there's one image on Commons that would serve to illustrate the general purpose for which the nonfree image is used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the discussion, but I don't see any actual consensus against fair-use images in BLP infoboxes. Is that written somewhere else in policy? What your saying sounds like you're describing policy (are not allowed, etc.) but I can't seem to find the actual policy that supports your assertion. Thanks in advance for your guidance. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Brian Lumley book covers

You recently removed two book covers from the article Brian Lumley, but your edit was reverted. I have started discussions for the book covers at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:Brian lumley the touch.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:TAINT-c19035.jpg. Please feel free to join the discussion there. Aspects (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) ntinue reverting repeatedly. - The Bounder (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of Lester Brickman

I have a fair use challenge from you, but do not see how to add the "Your reason" information to the page. There are no available free portraits of Professor Brickman. Professor Brickman, who commissioned the portrait from a photographer in 2009 for the purpose of having such a portrait to distribute to media, has given me written permission to use it. If this is not good enough please tell me what I need to do.Curmudgeonette (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Prof. Brickman needs to release the image under an appropriate free license. The best way to do this would be for him to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons himself, or for him to send an appropriate permission to you, and for you to handle the matter through the WP:OTRS process. The Wikimedia Foundation generally does not allow Wikipedia to use images under Wikipedia-only permissions, or licenses which do not allow commercial reuse or modification. It would be perfectly reasonable for Prof. Brickman not to want to donate his intellectual property under these conditions, but if so the photo won't be usable on Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Tea Leoni and Tim Daly

Hi Hullaballo, just wondering why you removed the personal life content from these two articles saying that it was not supported by the cited source when that is what the source says (and gives the date of Daly's divorce, for which you added a cn tag). Is there a problem with the reference itself or was this an error? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Claiming a relationship has continued since 2014 requires a reasonably current source. The source cited is from 2015. That's nowhere current enough. You're basically citing a claim of a short-term relationship (no more than a few months) into one of a long=term relationship (multiple years). This is a well-settled BLP issue. The discussion of Daly's first marriage was wholly unsourced prior to the addition of the dating claim, and only partially sourced by the later reference on a different claim. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You gave me kittens, so here is one for you!

Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You gave me kittens today when I saw that an AN/I report had been filed that I was involved with. Next time, just contact Ben and I directly so we can fix it without any dramuh. No harm, no foul. Have a great day!

{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of image of Ferrari crash

See Talk:Ling Jihua#Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for comment regarding your recent edit to Ling Jihua. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

could you please be more careful...

I requested restoration of File:Turkish ads use a hairy and disheveled KSM.jpg. On the deleting administrator's talk page I pointed out that the f5 they put in the deletion log should only be used when non-free images had gone without being used for seven days, but, when they deleted it, this image had only gone without being used for about four hours -- that is, since your second excision of it, yesterday.

On their talk page I wrote: "I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's second excision of the image gives the grave appearance of a lapse from WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think they should have let the discussion I opened play out."

Yes, I see, from your signature, that you feel harassed. Let's be clear, my observation that I think you gave the appearance of a lapse from WP:BATTLEGROUND is not an accusation of bad faith. I think you made a mistake. We are all fallible, and, eventually, all good faith contributors will make a mistake -- multiple mistakes.

In my opinion, our goal should not be the unachievable zero mistakes, it should be to recognize early, when we have made a mistake, and to openly acknowledge that mistake, so the people we work with know they can trust us.

In this particular instance I am going to suggest you reconsider your second excision. I am going to suggest you consider acknowledging that you should have let the discussion I opened at Talk:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed play out. Decision making here on the WMF project is supposed to be through consensus, after all. 11:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that, per WMF resolution and nonfree use policy, exceptions to the nonfree use standards cannot be granted by local consensus. This was a garden-variety NFCC violation, and was subject to summary removal. "To illustrate" is not a valid use rationale, otherwise any nonfree image could be used in a pertinent article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of important imagery

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Western painting, you may be blocked from editing. ...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't look like vandalism to me so much as a content dispute. Take it to the talk page please. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Western painting. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing....Modernist (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Modernist I'm seeing edit warring on your part as well. Knock it off. Take this to the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Gee whiz...

You pulled an album cover from my wiki entry. I bit of a pain, but I wanted to change it anyway. How can I post a new image that won't ruffle feathers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.186.124 (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bob oksner 1970.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bob oksner 1970.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of cover image from Marcia Joanne Bennett

Hello, I see you removed the image of the book cover from Marcia Joanne Bennett. I'm reverting that for the moment because I'd like to discuss it before the file is deleted. She is a minor author with no pages covering individual works, and that book cover is representative. I worked with a couple experienced editors on that page, and this issue was never mentioned. I notice that Template:Non-free use rationale book cover includes "Author" under Purpose of Use]]. I would like for the cover to remain, if it's defensible. Thank you, Stevenarntson (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonfree book covers in author bios, like nonfree album covers in musician bios, are generally disallowed, and cannot be included absent significant sourced discussion of the cover itself (or in the rare case where the author is also notable as an artist and the cover is used as an appropriate example of such work). This is not a matter requiring extensive discussion, and in any case the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to retain a nonfree image in this context. Vestigial language in a template does not outweigh consistent practice and policy consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Incident report opened

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alaney2k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Personal relationships & sourcing

Hi, re: this removal - firstly I have no issue with it being removed on grounds of notability or just for being gossipy information - but do statements like that really require constant replacement of the reference(s)? A quick Google yields 5+ results from the last month to confirm this information, do we really need to keep the sources up to date when clearly non-controversial? Seems like a lot of needless hassle tbh! Cheers, Nikthestunned 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Constantly, no. The standard I've used has been one year; I've been doing this for a while, and it seems to be pretty noncontroversial. This one had a 2015 source, which was too old. I've seen some real howlers -- chains like A is dating B, B is dating C, C is married to D . . . And we do want editors to monitor BLPs for accuracy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Righto! I guess it does make sense, thanks for the explanation. Nikthestunned 08:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Astounding Brake.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Astounding Brake.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Martin Page Image

You Italic textremoved the image I used for Martin Page's article. I believe it is under fair use, as it is sourced from an independent informational music website, AllMusse too, I would assume that it would be fair use here too. In any case, I'm reverting your edit until we can talk about more this in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackerni888 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI#1 is crystal clear. "Non-free promotional images" of "people still alive" are not acceptable, absent unusual circumstances which are not present here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Alpha Anthology....

I don't know whether you are privilege to any facility that allows you to revert--because you apparently thought that the closure was wrong.Thus I have undone your series of edits. Further you would do better by having a look at WP:UGC(w.r.t to Goodreads)(Also see this and this--about current community stands on the issue--if you aren't already aware!) and why existence≠notability(w.r.t the links from catalogue of MIT Science Fiction Society's Library).I sincerely hope this helps more than your hyperbolic edit summaries helped me.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 09:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The "privilege" is called "literacy". The close you refer to was a "Keep". That's why it says "Keep" in bold letters at the top. You don't get to change it because you disagree with it. As for the rest of your ranting, your failure to look for sources in obvious places doesn't mean they don't exist. And the contents lists of books are generally reliably sourced to the books themselves; to claim otherwise if mindless pedantry. Now multiple editors have opposed your redirects. Stop edit warring and whining. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Alpha 1 (Robert Silverberg anthology)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Winged Blades ^Godric 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is w.r.t to this AfD and simultaneous proceedings, where you opposed the merge.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You are seemingly already aware but still doing this,lest I be accused of canvassing!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Total Divas

You have been warned. Keep disrupting the page and you will be reported. Another editor (CCamp2013) and I have already told you to stop, so stop. MSMRHurricane (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing copyright violations is not disruption. Verbatim repetition of PR/advertising/promotional text is an obvious copyright violation. Do you really think an admin will hit me with a folding chair on your complaint? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet I have not been "advertising" anything. How is using the correct term (WWE Superstar) of an athletes career advertising or spam? It's used a total of three-four times throughout the summaries, in different sections! You have been warned by me and another editor, it's not advertising. Get off your high horse and stop trying to start drama, clearly seeing your talk page and your act of "everyone on Wiki is out to get me" is a cry for help, just because other editors hold different views and opinions to you doesn't mean they're out to get you. You disrupt the page by removing content that is clearly not used for advertising purposes. You have been the only user to come with this complaint and you should really handle it differently instead of removing it. MSMRHurricane (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

What part of COPYRIGHT VIOLATION do you not understand, you loud-mouthed buffoon? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow, very mature, I see. This is ridiculous, I don't see how this is accused of copyright when the plot summaries on the pages differentiate from any other site that contains plot summaries of each of these episodes. MSMRHurricane (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of other sites don't follow our policies and include copyrighted textIf you can't accept that Wikipedia doesn't, you shouldn't be editing here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

You clearly didn't understand what I said about other sites. I was comparing it to Wikipedia, specifically the page I have been editing, and the summaries were different to AVOID copyright violations from other sites. You haven't even given specifics on what was exactly "copyright" and why, therefore I feel your claims are void and null. MSMRHurricane (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidents noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's personal attacks. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now closed. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

B4 clarification

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage of Shannara

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, i have mentioned you at the above afd, hope that is ok. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Per suggestion from Admin

I am wondering why you have been going Wrestling article to Wrestling article removing links to WWE Hall of Fame from them and using the reason as spam? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

For reference see this conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Because it is spam, promoting a particular commercial enterprise. The WWE-related articles have been riddled with blatantly promotional labels and honorifics, which serve no encyclopedic purpose but inflate the significance and promote the WWE and its performers. Articles like New York Yankees and Dallas Cowboys mange to be written without sticking promotional epithets before the names of their most famous athletes. While Victoria's Secret Amge;s are identified as such in their own bios, the lebel is generally not repeated when their names are mentioned in other articles. "Honors" conferred by employees by their employers generally lack broad encyclopedic value, and while they may be appropriate to mention in the actual bios of the recipients, their principal function is other article is primarily commercial promotion. I've been doing this for quite some time (I think starting in 2015 with some particularly spammy use of the phrase "Disney Legend", and there hasn;t been any serious controversy about the practice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern over the quality of the articles, but that should be addressed on the articles themselves. Unilaterally labeling Wikipedia articles as spam and de-linking them from other articles is likely to be seen at best as arbitrary and possibly even disruptive. I would encourage you to open a discussion somewhere appropriate, possibly on one of the various related project talk pages, and see where things go. You are also free to edit the articles to remove any obviously UNDUE or WP:PROMO material. But just going around and de-linking articles w/o any kind of consensus is probably going too far. I would further suggest self reverting the de-linkings that you have already done. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious you haven't bothered to review what's going on. Neither the WWE, Disney corporate, nor any other commercial enterprise gets to decide how their employees and hirelings are described on Wikipedia. Advertising slogans, branding, and in-universe drivel have no place here. If you don't understand that, hang up your admin hat here and go off to Wikia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually what's going on is that one editor is unilaterally declaring a handful of Wikipedia articles to be SPAM and is going around de-linking them w/o any kind of consensus. That's an over reach, however well intentioned. This is not your private playground and you don't get to make that kind of decision on your own. Please stop and open a discussion somewhere so that if there are problems on these articles they can be addressed and fixed with some degree of community consensus. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a dishonest fabrication, and you goddamn well know it. I have not declared the articles "SPAM"; if I had intended to do that, I would have put a spam tag on the articles and marked them for speedy deletion. If you really don't understand that process, you have fundamental competence deficiencies that should keep you from acting as an admin in this area. We are talking about inserting advertising slogans and catchphrases into articles about (mostly) living persons. If I were removing the phrase "Must-See TV Superstar" Jennifer Aniston from articles which mentioned her, nobody would bat an eye. As I said, above, and you willfully ignored, I've been doing this for an extended period of time, and there were no serious objections until yesterday -- and they don't relate to the practice in general, but to promotions for one business which has an intense fan base. "WWE superstar" is an advertising slogan, not factual content, and it doesn't belong in an encylopedic biography outside of a very narrow context relating to promotion of a performer's career. We don't describe someone as a "supermodel" merely because their management company does. We don't describe someone as a "porn superstar" merely because their agent does. Hell, we've pretty much scrubbed Wikipedia of the phrase "porn star" for the same reason -- because it's promotional, not factual. We have community consensus on the broadly applicable policies and guidelines about promotional content in articles. If you think we should create an exception to these policies and guidelines to allow promotional content related to a particular commercial business, then it's your responsibility to open the discussion, boneheaded as such an action would be. And, by the way, we don't refer to a particular US senator as "Lying Ted Cruz", even though WWE Hall of Famer Donald Trump made that his "official" non de guerre. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to your editing articles to remove promotional language. The issue here is your de-linking those articles elsewhere. [Side note: I haven't seen any of that since this discussion opened so from my perspective that issue seems to have gone away.) Beyond that this is a content dispute and needs to be handled accordingly. On which note that also means being WP:CIVIL when interacting with other editors. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Anna Richardson

Hi Hullaballoo!

First off I want to say that I should have done this earlier, and probably before simply reverting your edit. I would also like to add that 2A02:C7F:943B:6D00:68F3:6B68:65E4:B764 isn't me.

Ok, with that out of the way, let's have a discussion. I appreciate that the citation used is both paywalled and from a few years ago. I have done some digging, and found some more recent paywall-free sources:

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/celebrity-couple-sue-perkins-and-anna-richardson-adopt-dog-from-animal-lifeline/story-30214293-detail/story.html

http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/29/anna-richardson-turned-down-chance-to-host-great-british-bake-off-out-of-loyalty-to-sue-perkins-6413159/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/anna-richardson-on-the-power-of-naked-attraction-and-leaving-her/

What are your thoughts? Greg (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

REverted your deletion at Nathalia Holt

I haven't seen any rule saying that a non-free book cover can't be used in the author's article. Can you point me to it? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Nonfree book cover on author page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Image of book cover

Hi Hullaballo, Do you have any advice on how to provide the copyright that would allow the display of the book cover in Wikipedia? (The book is Risk, Chance, and Causation - Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease" by Michael B. Bracken.) Should the copyright be changed to 'free work'? I have an email from Yale University Press agreeing to the online reproduction of the jacket image of the book. The jacket shows the original work (J. Gillray, "Metallic-Tractors," acquatint, 1801), with minor changes. According to Circular 14 of the US Copyright Office: "A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable." Does this apply here? Thank you! LENK2121 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't think that applies here. The image has been both edited (not merely cropped) and recolored (not merely filtered). Permission for "online reproduction" isn't enough; the rightsholder must allow use by anyone for any purpose. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Hullaballoo,

First, apologies for misspelling your name in the first instance. Second, thank you for clarifying your concerns about the image. Third, if I pursue the rightsholder to allow free use of the image of the book jacket, will that satisfy all requirements for displaying the image online in the Wikipedia article? Best, LENK2121 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Hullaballoo, Just circling back to you about my question above from July 10th. Any thoughts? Best, LENK2121 (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, so long the rightsholder issues one of the accepted free licenses, such as the (CC-BY-SA) license listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI Notice regarding your edits at Lana Rhoades

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pursuant to that thread, you've not responded to my suggestion at talk:Lana Rhoades. Are there any serious BLP concerns you have that would prevent the restoration of the article for the purposes of an AfD discussion? Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Complete lack of reliably sourced biographical content. Nobody's argued that there is any, so there's no reason for any lengthy debate, is there? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Picard pic in Patrick Stewart

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You removed the Picard pic that we had in the Star Trek: The Next Generation section - diff. The rational was WP:NFCCP, point 8, and "also no article-specific use rationale". Not sure what that latter refers to, and I do know you know your stuff. However, I'd suggest that Patrick Stewart as Picard is a cultural icon, and that it's presence would significantly add to readers' understanding. Someone may have rarely or never seen Star Trek, but there's a decent chance they'll recognise Picard from that pic. What do you think? Still no? Bromley86 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-free content in inboxes?

Hi Hullaballoo, Thanks for your detailed edit comment in reverting my reinstatement of the non-free image of Peter Goldmark. It gave me something to review to get on the same page as you. I'm still not sure that I see the basis for excluding non-free images from infoboxes. When I searched on "infobox" in the links that you provided, the only place that it occurred was in Wikipedia:Non-free content, where it said, "A rationale template for logos, assuming they are being used as a header image (standalone or infobox) for the entity the logo represents". Perhaps you could point me to—and quote—the passage that you find to be informative on banning non-free images from infoboxes. I would appreciate that very much to improve my own understanding of the rules of WP. I'll look for your reply, here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:14, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Because the general rule is that you can't use nonfree images of living people in their BLPs; there is a very, very, very limited exception for illustrating specific points, which doesn't apply to general illustrations in infoboxes. (There's also an exception for people who'll never get out of prison or are long-term fugitives, but that doesn't apply here). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, Hullaballoo, but I don't see where this rule is that you mention. Please give me the link and the quotation. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's the very first item in WP:NFC#UUI, which I recommended you give particular attention to: "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". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Hullaballoo. You did point me there, but I failed to grasp what was conveyed. Any thoughts to offer at Talk:Peter C. Goldmark, Jr. or should I proceed, as proposed? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 20:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter Norton

Hello. Could you explain the reasons for removing the "pink shirt" cover from the Peter Norton article? Is this not "fair use" or is some legal principle being violated here? Thanks, --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

"Fair use" isn't the issue. WP:NFC and WP:NFCC are more restrictive than the law of fair use. Absent unusual circumstances, nonfree book covers aren't allowed in author bios, and, with very limited exceptions, nonfree images of the article subjects aren't allowed in BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Bear with me, I don't yet understand this. The nutshell at WP:NFC says "fair use", can't be replaced by a free image, and must have a rationale. Are these tripwires met? WP:NFCC has no nutshell but the points are no free equivalent, respect commercial opportunities, minimal usage, previous publication, content, a Matrushka doll of nesting requirements at "media specific policy", one article minimum, contextual significance, restrictions on location, and image description page. OK, looking at "media specific policy", it points me back at WP:NFCC so that's a loop. It would be really helpful to me in interpreting all the vaguely legal-sounding text there and tell me where I went wrong 8 years ago? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2017/May#Nonfree book cover on author page. Consensus interpretation is that such use fails the contextual significance test. NFCC enforcement has become stricter since you originally uploaded the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does Amazon allow such images on their site?

Was there an RfC that determined the "consensus interpretation" regarding the use of images of book covers? wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That discussion, interestingly, says "The one exception would be if the reliable sources about the author also substantially discuss the book cover; if for example the cover were widely hailed as exceptional or were extremely controversial, and that cover was a substantial part of the author's notability." The "pink shirt" cover gets discussed in sources, and became the model for every subsequent jacket photo for Norton. Is that not "contextually significant" ? Unfortunately the Amazon use is no help here; Amazon has enough money to hire more lawyers than anyone who could conceivably sue them so they can make their own rules. Wikimedia doesn't have enough money for that. And I don't have enough money to get Mr. Norton to pose for me. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt many or any authors would object to Wikipedia publishing low resolution images of their book covers; such images are useful to them as a marketing tool. I realize there are many editors who object to using Wikipedia for "free advertising" of products, but that's another rationale. I'm confident that if we published anything that made WMF's lawyers uncomfortable, they would exercise their WP:Office actions rights. On a somewhat related note, I'm puzzled as to why File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg is allowed to stay online, not only in low-res form but as a monster-sized 2,912 × 4,030 pixels image, while its human author has strenuously objected and asserted his copyright rights. Recall the girl who was taken to court for encouraging a boy to commit suicide on social media. The prosecutors asserted that she was responsible for the boy's death even though she didn't literally "pull the trigger". Even if the photographer didn't literally click the shutter, he is still responsible for setting up the photograph and seducing the monkey to push the button. wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation page [55] says, in part "...Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ..." I'm not sure what distinction there is between a "doctrine" and a "policy" nor why this is redundantly designated so, and this page doesn't say what the en.wikipedia project policy actually *is*, but since it's the star project I'm sure its policy, wherever that may be, is compliant. If so, "identifying a protected work" would be included as allowed, as I read this. Surely the WMF has so exercised enough due diligence to warn anyone who, say, wants to print out the Wikipedia and sell copies door-to-door, that there are non-free files here that hypothetically require permission to reproduce? Thanks for the continuing feedback. I appreciate the time it takes to educate the copyright novice. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of educating the copyright novice, per this discussion, BU Rob13's proposed talk at Wikimania CopyrightforDummies was evidently declined. Perhaps Rob can weigh in here with his opinion on whether the image of the "pink shirt" cover, which has adorned Norton's bio for years, can be allowed to stay. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a definite disallow. There are potential free alternatives to illustrate the article subject himself, and the book cover is not contextually significant for the article subject. There is no discussion of that image in the text. See WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

But the article says 'The first (1985) edition was nicknamed "the pink shirt book", after the pink shirt that Norton wore for the cover photo, and Norton's crossed-arm pose on that cover is a U.S. registered trademark. . Please explain! --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, I was reading further down the page, since the image renders lower than that text on my screen. With that, it's more ambiguous. Probably meets WP:NFCC#8. You could take it to FFD if there's still concern over it; I'm more an expert on public domain and the nuances of whether someone could make a copyright claim on something (de minimis, freedom of panorama, etc.) than fair use, so I'm not comfortable giving an authoritative statement on this one way or the other given that text in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BU Rob13 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What's FFD? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:FFD, Files for discussion – wbm1058 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Revert wars don't help the encyclopedia. Could you please explain why WP has policies for including non-free content? Could you explain to me why, in light of all the above discussino, the picture of the pink shirt cover is in violation of WP policies? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring content policies established by the WMF really doesn't help the encyclopedia, and that's why removing clear NFCC violations like this is an exception to 3RR. Nonfree images of living persons are the canonical example of replaceable images, failing NFCC#1, and nonfree book covers aren't allowed in author bios, per the link I provided to you before, above. Neither the concept of "pink shirt" nor that of "crossed arms" requires a visual cue to be properly understood. If you're going to add nonfree images to articles, you need to understand the nonfree content policies, and asking for endless explanations/justifications of well-established policies, your responsibility is to educate yourself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

1. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy is the only policy I'm aware of that's been established by the Wikimedia Foundation.
2. The Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Exemption Doctrine Policy was established by community consensus, not by any Foundation directive. There are 67 pages of archived talk discussing the NFCC.
3. The "learning curve" on this is quite steep. Few of us are copyright lawyers or experts, and our Exemption Doctrine Policy was apparently not written by experts in the field.
4. All 10 of the Non-free content criteria must be met to include an image in an article.
5. #8 Contextual significance says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

By your hard-line reading of this, I'm wondering whether any images can pass this requirement. What picture of a book cover is really necessary to understanding an article about the book? A hard-line reading of this would require that virtually all infobox images of book covers in articles about the contents inside the cover should be removed. Omission of a picture of a book cover is not detrimental to understanding an article about the contents of a book, or the reception of the book, or the significance of the book... wbm1058 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The WMF's licensing resolution, which you cite, states that EDP's may authorize the use of "identifying protected works such as logos", in particular in the context of "complement[ing] (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works". Those two provisions, taken together, create the "space" for the EDP to, by consensus interpretation, treat such cover images as meeting the "contextual significance" test. I've argued, repeatedly, that we should rewrite the EDP to align more closely with the exact language of the Foundation's Resolution on the matter of identifying images, but the prevailing sentiment has been that the practice is generally well-understood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The use of non-free images is by policy not permitted in Biographies of Living persons, because the image fails the test of non replaceability precisely because the person is alive and the possibility exists of taking a suitably free or licenced image. The policy specifically prohibits the uses of book covers to illustrate articles about living persons fo this very reason. However: a loophole exist in the policy that if that specific book is discussed in the text of the article, then the non free image can be used to illustrate the section on the book (because a non free image of the book is not available). In this case, the book is not sufficiently discussed in the article beyond a mention in a list of books. I do find it hard to believe that as Peter Norton is well known, that a free or suitably licenced image is not available from somewhere. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

In September 1983, Norton started work on The Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC. The book was a popular and comprehensive guide to low-level programming on the original PC platform (covering BIOS and MS-DOS system calls in great detail). The first (1985) edition was nicknamed "the pink shirt book", after the pink shirt that Norton wore for the cover photo, and Norton's crossed-arm pose on that cover is a U.S. registered trademark.

The second (1988) edition, renamed The New Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC & PS/2, again featured the crossed arms, pink shirt cover image.

Are you claiming that this text does not discuss the cover of the book?? wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that readers of the article cannot understand the idea of "crossed arms" or "pink shirt" without a visual aid? It is well-established, and almost universally accepted, that simply describing an image in an article's text is an insufficient justification for the use of a nonfree image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Tricky. It mentions that the book exists, but does not actually address the book contents beyond a vague synopsis. It is part of the biography (thus talking about Peter Norton, the person), but not an in depth discussion of the book. As pointed out, the image does nothing to enhance the reader's understanding of a BIOS, MS-DOS, a pink shirt or crossed arms. But as posted below, an article specifically about the book could include the image without problem. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But, an article titled The Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC could include this image in its infobox, without specifically discussing the cover at all, in blatant violation of the Contextual significance criteria #8? wbm1058 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Use the pink shirt book cover. This is the iconic image of Norton. He's by far best known through the book(s), and that is the only image that most readers have ever seen of him. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Principality of Wy

Hi Hullaballoo. I'm tidying up some pages, and I've just done Principality of Wy. In it, there's a file that's a copy of a painting of the "royal" family. Reading between the lines, it may have been uploaded by the artist himself (Sam Wade), and the rational that was added by 124.171.5.241 was likely added either by that same uploader, or by the person that commissioned it, Paul DelPrat. He has retained copyright though - it's not CC. Do you think we can fairly use it in that article on his micronation? My reading, from the permission (" critical commentary"), is no.

Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I promise to not treat you like dirt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia decision making and discussion

You and I have disagreed a number of times. Nevertheless I am going to offer you some advice, the same advice I would offer you if you and I were best friends.

You do realize your signature suggests you have big chip on your shoulder?

You addressed this comment to administrator Explicit. Doesn't it seem confrontational to you? Has anyone suggested you consider that showing a confrontational and uncompromising persona makes it harder for others to take your opinions seriously?

The wikipedia has policies, and guidelines, that urge civility, collegiality, and the "assumption of good faith". While these policies and guidelines are often ignored, some my most positive and productive working relationships here have been with people who strongly disagreed with me -- who nevertheless did not take our disagreements as insults.

I remember one of the challenges I got in my first year on the wikipedia. My challenger thought some passages I drafted showed bias. I did my best to not react as if his challenge was personal, rather than concern over my contribution. I ekpt my cool, and asked some questions. He kept his cool too. He said, paraphrasing from memory, "I don't think the article should say X, unless we have substantiation Y. Well, I had read references that substantiated Y. I rewrote some passages.

Result, after our dialogue, and the improvements he triggered, I thought the article was considerably improved. H thought the article was considerably improved, as well. I thought I could look forward to years of positive challenges, like that. I had no idea it would prove to be a high water mark.

I have had other positive interactions with contributors who disagreed with me strongly. One guy in particular I could count on for valuable, fair, challenges, that were really worth taking seriously. I knew if I made a good, convincing point he would acknowledge that point. I think I acknowledged his good points. Over the years, when my google news searches confirmed points he had made, I'd give him a heads-up. I think, like me, he looked to get things right, not struggle to prove his initial points, without regard to whether further research supported them.

I was targetted by a mean spirited clique, some years ago. Their views on controversial topics were close to his. But they were violating policy by attacking my motives and character, not my reasoning. Even though his views were close to theirs, he stuck up for me, my character. His support was a huge relief.

I suggest you will find it difficult to win supporters, who will defend your character and motives, so long as seem bitter, confrontational, and quick to accuse.

Your signature strongly suggests you feel isolated. If I feel you have started to show genuine cooperation, and fairness, I will speak up for your character and motives, even if I am doing so on an issue where I disagree with your opinions.

I am sure I am not the only one.

So, why not consider this? I'd start with retiring the bitter signature.

Did you ever read anything about Benjamin Franklin? He wrote advice for ambitious young men. Part of his advice was to pretend to be humble to your elders. He told ambitious young men that they didn't have to actually feel humble, they merely had to act humble.

It is the same with good faith, the project will work best if we all give the appearance of good faith, and patience, even when our patience is exhausted.

This is the same advice I would give you if you and I were best friends. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Criterion 8? what is it?

Dear Hullaballo, What means "fails NFCC#8"? Regards, Kintaro (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kintaro, Talk page stalker here. It refers to point 8 here. Basically, it's a non-free image that isn't absolutely essential for the article. An easy example for you: a pic is used on the Jean-Luc Picard article, because it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic"; that same pic was removed from the Patrick Stewart article's Star Trek subsection as it wasn't essential to understanding Stewart, the article's topic.

In addition, as that pic of Tippett is now orphaned, it's been tagged for deletion.[56] Bromley86 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you, Bromley. Anyway, several relevant articles are in connection with this image, so there's no reason to delete it if it can be used. For example, to illustrate articles such as Prehistoric Beast, Dinosaur! ("origins of the project" section) or Go motion. As the photograph was taken while Phil Tippett was obtaining one frame in a go motion special effects process, I simply suggest to use it in the article Go motion (to illustrate the introduction). I did it so you simply need to check... What do you think, Bromley/Hullaballo? Kintaro (talk) 21:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No idea, I'm afraid. I was the one that originally added that Picard pic to the Stewart article, so I'm clearly not an expert on non-free :) . Bromley86 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Kintaro: The image fails WP:NFCC #1. The image is replaceable by free content. We do not need to use a non-free image to depict this as a free image can be created which demonstrates the technique. Simply having an image for illustrative purposes is not enough to justify non-free media in this case. I recommend you remove the image from Go Motion and allow the image to be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hammersoft:, the image's purpose was to illustrate the "career" section in the article Phil Tippett (please, just check over there) because this guy is so closely related to this technique (as it is known nowadays) that he could be pointed out as the inventor. In my opinion, the photo should go back to the Phil Tippett article... Regards. Kintaro (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• It is unnecessary in either case. We do not need a non-free image to depict him (we have a free image for that purpose) and we do not need this image to depict the technique, as a free one can be created that serves the same encyclopedic purpose. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ok ! Kintaro (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Angelyne...?

Okay, could I get a more thorough explanation? (I am not saying you are wrong, of course, and I had misgivings even when I uploaded the file and added to the article in the first place, but I'd like to understand this better so I do not make mistakes in the future, yes? Especially as the billboard featured in the photograph is specifically discussed in the article and may never again in the future be photographed, which I had come to understand meant it would qualify as fair use as not replaceable by any other potentially free image... It seems you've had a number of people asking you similar questions over the past month or two. But help me out here. Thanks!). KDS4444 (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a nonfree photo of a nonfree artwork. Even if the billboard itself isn't under copyright (which is possible if it were first published before 1989 without an appropriate copyright notice), the photo isn't. There's a strong possibility it could be replaced by a free(r) image, especially given US freedom of panorama rules, and therefore fails NFCC#1. Just because the billboard is discussed in the article doesn't justify use of a nonfree image. The billboard isn't the subject of the article, the person on it is. You don't need a picture of the billboard to understand that Angelyne's picture appeared on billboards; therefore the use also fails NFCC#8. To use a simple analogy: you don't need a picture of their centerfold to understand that a model was a Playboy playmate, even if that's what they're most famous for. If this were an article on "The Angelyne Billboard Phenomenon", it would likely be an acceptable use. But it's a biography of the person, and the standards are different. In general, for the same reasons, we don't allow magazine covers to be used to illustrate the articles of people appearing on them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Marilyn Michaels

I am amazed you hadn't already reported it, but I just reported Quiteashtrudel, Kidsndreamers, TheOldestEstablished and TheOldestEstablished to SPI.Marauder40 (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Case is here [57]Marauder40 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Cluebot

Reverted [[58]]. I thought the user was a vandal you had been reverting but the Bot seems to see it as a constructive edit. Is the user a vandal? 2600:1:F15A:C3A1:BD59:8361:B763:3860 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The user is not a constructive editor, and is likely the subject's publicist or someone else close to her. Note, in particular, that their history of "The Kopykats" is heavily faked -- the short run TV show did not win any Emmy Awards and that (at least per IMDB listings) the subject appeared in fewer than half the episodes [59]. The article has been laced with faked and exaggerated claims for years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I was interested in your comment here. You seem largely supportive of my proposal but your comment is "Oppose as framed". What modifications would permit you to support the proposal? --John (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

John, I believe it's a question of emphasis. For all that some editors find Hillbillyholiday annoying, his work is overall a substantial net positive. Removing content that doesn't comply with BLP requirements is much more important than salvaging the small amounts of worthwhile content caught up in it, and no balance needs to be struck. Enforcing BLP is time-consuming and relatively thankless, and adding a layer of explaining the obvious will only discourage work in the area. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So your !vote is more like a "not guilty" verdict. Thank you for explaining. --John (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jamie Lee Curtis

I suspect you might not like my recent edit of Jamie Lee Curtis. If so, I suggest joining the discussion on the Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Oops

Friendly notice: you may have thrown out the baby with the bath water in this recent revert. ~★ nmaia ^d 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of images

Hi. I noticed you remove some images at Salvatore Riina, Giovanni Falcone, without updating the file page. There were already fair-use rationals for their inclusion on the pages. You claim it fails NFCC#8, but I'd have to disagree, as for example on Riina's page you removed every image except for the infobox, just a sea of text. With the rationals on the file pages I see no reason not to include the images, because they do contribute to the readers experience. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

There may have been dubious use rationales for the files, but that's not enough. Plus, NFCC standards are stricter than fair use. Multiple nonfree images of the same person, nonfree image of the subject's family, etc, fail NFCC standards and should be removed. And grisly images of people whose deaths may or may not be directly attributed to the article subject really are of little encyclopedic value, and especially unsuitable when their copyright status has been disputed for years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I would recommend you amend those rationals on their files then. It would not make sense to have them there without the image displayed on the pages. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

As nonfree images not used in articles, they'll be deleted after a grace period. I'm certainly not going to create use rationales that I don't believe are valid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Most won't be deleted as they are used on their main pages such as Capaci bombing and Pio La Torre, therefore all the other rationals that do not bear the image any longer, should be removed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Tucker (2nd nomination)

In 2015, you supported the deletion if the article on Helen Tucker. The vote ended with no consensus. Would you consider voting on my new nomination? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful?

You removed #File:b nNon-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.shana_Johnson_being_interviewed_by_Arab_TV.jpg, with an edit summary " (replaceable nonfree image, also fails WP:NFCC#8"

Since it was discussed already at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_October_27#File:Shoshana_Johnson_being_interviewed_by_Arab_TV.jpg, shouldn't you have voiced your concerns somewhere, maybe Talk:Shoshana Johnson, rather than simply removing it without any prior discussion?

NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

There was massive hysteria over the capture of Shoshana, and her comrade, the tiny blond woman. The press was all over how they were being abused while in Iraqi detention. A liar, who wanted a Green Card, told American intelligence that the women were being raped and tortured. This widely republished screenshot, of the tense and distressed Johnson being interrogated was part of the fuel to the hysteria. I think that makes the image non-replaceable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Spider girls

Hello, my friend. About this, I didn't want to revert. Do you object to it existing as a non-free. Should it go through a deletion process? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the image principally for failing NFCC#1 -- the article subjects are active performers and no reason has been given why a photograph can't be taken and made available as a free image. The NFCC use rationale doesn't address this, and is clearly insufficient. This is routine, and I think just letting it do through the standard orphaned image removal process is the simplest way to handle this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. Thank you. (And I promise not to ever, ever treat you like dirt. ) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Berlusconi and The Economist

Sorry but I don't think you have a point regarding that issue. The picture in question has been there for ages and it has every reason to stay where it is. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Uptade: Ok thanks to your intervention the pic has been classified as an orphaned one and thus removed from Commons. Goog job sir. My congratulations. Uptade2: By the way, reading your Talk page, I noticed that you are a big fun of deleting pictures with fair-use rationals. I wonder what your problems are? I'm going to report you wherever possible because your're just harming Wikipedia with your imbecile attitude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conte di Cavour (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Conte di Cavour: WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED or WP:CONTENTAGE are not acceptable justifications for non-free use. Moreover, Commons does not accept non-free content/fair use content, and such files will be deleted from Commons when they are discovered. If there's a particular non-free file you wish to use in a Wikipedia article, you should upload it locally to Wikipedia; however, before doing so you should make sure the way you want to use the file complies with non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied for each use, and satsifying one or just some is not enough. Non-free use can be particularly tricky in some cases, so please ask for assistance at WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC if you have any questions about it.

As for the other stuff you posted above, Hullaballo Wolfwitz is quite expereinced when it comes to assessing non-free content use. This does not mean mistakes are not occasionally made, and if they are they can be fixed. However, instead of insulting Hullaballoo Wolfwitz, automatically assuming he is wrong and engaging in edit warring, it would be more constructive to civilly ask why the file was removed, and whether there is anything which can be done to resolve any non-free content policy issues it may have. In addtion, assuming the other posts you refer to on this page are automatically right because they are similar to yours is also not a really good thing to do. Non-free use needs to be assessed independently as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE so the circumstances of these other posts might be completely different. It's also possible that those other editors are also not very familiar with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and it is they not Hullaballoo Wolfowits who is wrong. Looking at your user talk page, there are quite a lot of notifications about image use posted over many years; so, following the rationale you used above, one might jump to conclusions and assume that you do not have a very good grasp of relevant policy when it comes to image use on Wikipedia. Just as you would probably not appreciate someone seeing those posts and assuming the worst about you, you should not be so quick to assume the worst about Hullabaloo Wolfowitz.

This edit sum you left shows a common misunderstanding that many editors make when it comes to non-free content use: mistaking the US concept of fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as being one and the same. As explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE, Wikipedia's policy is purposely more restrictive than US copyright law, and it is Wikipedia's policy which needs to be satisfied, regardless of whether you believe the file qualifies as "fair use". The non-free use of magazine, book, album covers, etc. can be especially hard to justify when they are not being use as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the work in question for the reasons given in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. In the Berlusconi article, this means that the particular cover of Time itself would need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary, not just comments about what the magazine reported about Berlusconi. So, just wanting to show that Berlusconi appeared on the cover is not a sufficient justification for non-free use (see item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI); there needs to be specific sourced content about the cover itself. A file such is this is only iconic or historic if reliable sources discuss it and say it is. The removal of Berlusconi from office may have been a historic event in Italian politics, but does not automatically mean (as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC) that all media images, etc. associated with tevent are also historic.

If you believe that such content can be found and added to the article along with citations to reliable sources in support, then explain things to Explicit (the administrator who deleted File:The Economist "Berlusconi Basta" cover (2006).jpg from Wikipedia: it was not uploaded to Commons) to consider "undeleting" it or make a request for undeletion at WP:REFUND, Files which are deleted are not gone forever, but rather they are only hidden from public view. Non-free files can be restored if their intended use is judge to comply with relevant policy. Another option might be to ask the the file be temporarily restored, so that it's non-free use can be further discussed at WP:FFD. For what it's worth, if I would have come across this type of non-free use, I would've likely removed the file from the article as well for the same reasons given by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz based upon the way the filke was being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz deletion spree. GAB^gab 01:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please disregard the above notice. The thread has been closed without any prejudice to you or your editing. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

FUR

You will notice that there is a fair use rationale on the image. If you feel it was placed incorrectly, or is not valid, argue for it there. Removing an image for an unspecified consensus is wrong. Furthermore, WP:BRD. Where's the discussion? Not at the image. Not on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That fair use rationale is only applicable to the album article, and can't serve for an use of the image in Terry Scott Taylor. And even if there was one for an use in Terry Scott Taylor, it is highly unlikely that it would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just to add to what Jo-Jo Eumerus posted, just changing the article paramater like this without further revising the rationale according is not really a valid justification for the new non-free use per WP:JUSTONE; so, in my opinion, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removal of the file was correct. WP:NFC#cite_note-3 is pretty clear on how album cover art may be used; so, when a stand-alone article about an album is merged into an article about the artist, the non-free use justification for any album covers being used also needs to be a reassessed. The non-free use rationale is this album cover is for one being used as the primary means of identification at the top of a stand-alone article about the album, not in a sub-section about the album in the artist's article. Moving {{infobox album}} as part of a merge, does not automatically mean any non-free album cover(s) being used in the original infobox should also be moved. Unfortunately, how non-free image use will be affected by such merges is something often not touched on in AfD's like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge & Innocence even though it's something always impacted. I've pointed this out in other AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones, but was told such reassessing was part of the normal process. It's not apparently as normal as some believe, but rather depends upon how aware those participating in the AfD, closing the AfD, or doing the subsequent merge are of WP:NFCC. Perhaps, something about this needs to be added to WP:MERGE, WP:AFD, WP:AFDAI, or somewhere else so that editors/closers are made better aware of this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have much else to add, except that there was a lengthy discussion several years ago which covered, inter alia, the analogous question of whether nonfree book covers could be used when the individual book article was merged into an author bio or series article -- and the conclusion, as here, was generally against the use. As Marchjuly notes, the matter is clearly address on the NFC page and no extended discussion is required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Then nominate the image for deletion as its article does not exist and, according to you, the FUR is invalid. I'll be glad to debate it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Terry Scott Taylor, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There is a fair use rationale and so removing the image is wrong. Removing referenced content is also incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Competence is required, Walter, and you're not showing it here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

While you may be in the "right" you posted on his talk page as if you were an Administrator - that's a big no-no. You don't have the authority to block, you're just another editor, and "last warnings" are bad form. Shape up, mate. Take him to ANI if that is what is requried.104.169.28.113 (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Paddy Casey

Hi there, you removed an edit made by myself on Paddy Caseys page citing it as unsourced gossip, I have known Casey the past two years through his relationship with Sophia, this information is correct, Wikipedia is a forum where all are entitled to contribute information they may have, you have removed my contribution for being correct. In this instance you are sorely wrong. KO0506 (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Um, even if that information is correct it needs to be sourced especially since it's information about a living person, and that information was not sourced. And no, you are not entitled to contributing unsourced information about a living person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Edward E. Kramer

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please respond to your email or put your response here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

File PROD

Hello again. I noticed that you have continued to remove images from articles, i.e. orphaning them, mainly on grounds of not meeting WP:NFCC#8. This year, we have extended {{subst:prod}} to files per RfC discussion at WT:PROD. {{subst:deletable image-caption}} has also added another parameter to fill in a reason for deletion, i.e. one of CSD types or PROD. I wonder whether you have known the changes. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

As per the current AN/I thread...

...take it to FFD and don't edit war. The image was a FUR so it is not "obvious" per the policy. [60] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No. The exact issue -- nonfree book covers in author bios -- has been discussed repeatedly at MCQ and elsewhere, and the essentially unanimous conclusion has been that, in the absence of substantive discussion about the covers themselves, such uses are NFCC violations. That still-pending discussion does not invalidate specific, settled consensus and require that every patently disallowed use be relitigated ad nauseam. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and insisting that established consensus be reestablished every time an issue arises is just disruption to make a point. You know better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Honey Wilder

Hi, you have put a redirect on Honey Wilder's page. I see that you have REDIRECTed the page to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. As Honey Wilder is a separate entity, her separate page should stay. I am removing your REDIRECT. Request you to not to put it again. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No. Your multiple removals of the redirect for the page were incorrect and contrary to established practice. In the absence of substantive sourced content regarding the article subject, consensus calls for redirecting the article to the page regarding the only sourced claim of significance. This consensus is confirmed by many AFD discussions relating to not only adult film performers, but also, within the erotica industry, Penthouse Pets and even Playboy Playmates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A discussion

Hello. This is related to an appropriate redirect for Janet Jacme you created [61], which was reverted [62] which was then restored by me [63] and then was reverted again by the same editor [64]. First, I wasn't aware that consensus had developed for creating redirects as an alternative to AfD (as noted in the above section). In any case, I moved this article to Draft space. There is a discussion about this on my talk page here, if you would like to chime in. I am hoping you do. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wadsworth Jarrell

Hi there. I saw that you removed the photograph of Jae Jarrell here in the Wadsworth Jarrell article under the rationale that "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It does indeed pass the policy to be included in the article, just like the paintings that are placed in the article. This article, which was reviewed in great detail many years ago (including photos and fair use usage) features an entire section that discusses the work Revolutionary, in which Jarrell took influence from Jae Jarrell's iconic fashion design to create one of his most groundbreaking and famous paintings. I have reverted your edits, as this photograph is important in explaining this context. Without seeing a photograph of the dress, one may not quite understand the concept of the dress, the intimidation it is meant to show, and frankly it helps to provide context that I do believe would be detrimental to understanding how it influenced Jarrell's "revolutionary" work that was dedicated to Angela Davis. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and if you wish to discuss this further please bring it up on the talk page of the article so we can get more feedback. Missvain (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For providing a reason to laugh heartily in that place most devoid of necessary humor, ANI. Thanks for puncturing some pomposity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

ANI Close

Frankly I am not going to bother re-opening it since its just a waste of your time. You know your interpretation and implementation of NFC is correct, almost every other editor with a cluepon knows its correct. Let Swarm have his last word. Suffice to say the utter bullshit they responded to me with is a good indication of their level of knowledge of how NFC is handled and considered. (Not to mention general practice, closing a discussion you have have opined in almost straight after commenting? Ha.) The photo one however probably should have been left in with a discussion on the talkpage first. Its not obviously a invalid use and in this *particular* case the photo is inextricably bound up with the caption. The story had it been printed entirely in text 'Israeli policeman beats up palestinian' and it later turned out to be incorrect is a non-story. It likely wouldn't have even made the news to require a correction in the first place. The only reason it became a thing is because of the photo. You *could* describe it entirely in prose, but without the photo to provide emotive context its not really possible to adequately describe its impact. I am quite confident any discussion would come down on the side of inclusion based on that argument alone. I agree on the others however. Softlavender in their final comment does actually put their finger on why they also do not understand NFC enforcement. Note the lack of 'valid' in their comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

With my compliments-

File:Bob Burns with bazooka 1937.jpg :) We hope (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bazooka (instrument). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your utter incompetence is not my problem. This ia as phony a complaint as is imaginable. It is hard to see this post as anything but dishonest. I am asking for sanctions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

A slight tweak can sometimes yield big results

Hi Hullaballo Wolfowitz. I do think you'd save yourself quite a bit of aggravation if (as I suggested in #RFU files) you make a slight change in your approach. This will allow you to continue doing the good work you do assessing NFCCP problems and also kind of make others have to focus on the quality of your edits instead of on you. Just tag anything you feel to be a violation of NFCC#1 with a template and leave it for an admin to deal with it. You can be bold a remove the file once, but just tag it with the rfu template if its re-added. If someone wants to dispute it, then they can follow the template's instructions and do so. F5 deletions take at least five days, whereas F7 deletions take at least two. If someone wants to edit war over the template, let them do so. They will end up being the one trying to explain themselves at ANI or AN3.

Same goes for any NFCC#8 violations you come across; be bold and remove the file, but use {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, prod, or even FFD if it's re-added. NFCC#10c violations and items 1 and 2 of WP:F7 are probably the only things going to be considered WP:NOT3RR, so just pass the baton to someone else for anything else after the first revert. Your assessments seem to be accurate and so they will most likely only be reaffirmed by a reviewing admin or an FFD consensus. If the file continues to be added after being removed by and admin or FFD discussion, then you would be justified per NOT3RR to continue to remove it and will be able to cite the admin's edit or FFD discussion in your edit sum each time you do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi. I don’t know much about non free use and you seem to. Can I ask you something? I uploaded this image of a murdered person for the article about the murder. I can’t find a free picture of the victim. Is it appropriate (under US law and WP guidelines) to use this image on that page? If so, a bot is asking for a “tag”; do you know what that means? —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You can make a fair case on the subjects biography a non-free picture (as they are deceased) would be acceptable due to the inability to get a free one. On the article about the murder what the victim looks like is almost never going to be relevant or add anything useful, so it would fail. -edit- Ah I see there is no biography and everything relevant is in the 'Murder' article. That could go either way. Personally I would say its not a valid case for a non-free image. Plenty of people would argue either way. Probably needs an FFD. There is a credible argument (but not one I agree with) that as all the biographical info is in the murder article, it meets the minimal use. US law is largely irrelevant, as ENWP applies stricter standards for fair use than would otherwise be the case in the US. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I’ll just let the bot delete the image, I think. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

ho, ho, ho

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Neddy wishes everybody a very merry Xmas (suggestions of direct ancestory with one of the eyewitnesses to the happy event have, so far, proved unfounded) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 3,376 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

C. K. Saraswathi image removal

The image contained still photos of C. K. Saraswathi as she featured in two films - one when she was young and the other when she was older. What does it have with the person living or dead? I have taken screen shots from those movies and uploaded it just as an identification because there were other actresses with same name. I can't understand the logic of removing film screen shots because her death is not quoted with a citation. --UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC, implementing WMF policy, bars use of nonfree images to illustrate the articles of living persons, absent unusual circumstances not claimed or present here. An uncited claim in another Wiki[edia article that a person has died, absent any supporting evidence, is not sufficient to establish that a person has died, especially when common sources indicate she is still alive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I write articles in good faith. I never create articles with matters unknown to me personally. Even when I cite sources, I thoroughly read the whole article before quoting. I personally know that she is dead. But I am unable to find a citation because she died in 1997 when Internet was not widely used in India. I have to find newspaper hard copies in either libraries or in the newspaper publishing houses. I am not in a position to do such strenuous work. Therefore, let my effort and time (and expenses) in creating that image go waste.--UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Award winner please assist in allowing me to get it right before removing

Hi Hullaballo Wolfowitz. The respect is earned, so with my first impression of your namesake it's no doubt a frustrating first impression. There were several links provided as additional references to have me fully correct what you initially removed from the section "casting". Mark a win up in that category for me I guess. However it now seems this has enraged you to go in and try to do more removal without provocation on every image but 1 for the page Up_on_High_Ground_(TV_series). I do know you'd save yourself quite a bit of aggravation if you would send me a mere talk page message first before presuming the images are replaceable non-free images. Copyright is indeed held by its photographer or company. If you would follow what you were awarded with on the The Wikipedia Excellence Award and actually find that that the sources of these images are straight from the internet official TV show website with no copyright infringement disclaimer thus they are free. Also these are found on flikr and tv.com. It's clear these screenshots are NOT violations when diminished in quality and size as accurately identified as nonfree on their file description pages. Please save the page as it was before you discovered it and just tag anything you feel to be a violation of NFCC#-whatever with a template and leave it for an admin or better yet me who wrote the page to deal with it. You can just tag it with the {{request edit}} User talk:Techform. Moreover if its something like this that you feel so strongly about like in the history edit to simply note it's "clutter", for a TV page that helps articulate a story with TV screenshots. I don't understand your rationale? What a short and inconclusive assessment of you to spend time removing or perhaps even vandalizing. If someone wants to dispute it, then they can follow the template's instructions and do so. A gross violations of WP:NFCC, patently invalid use rationales and Content disputes are a hearty appetite to use in bulk on 1 page like this.

Can you please explain your suggestions so I can perhaps use commons, or even better NFCC reasons for the pictures? I spent some valuable time getting this page well rounded and would like to get this back to its previous edit with images instead of removing them please. With respect, and frustration... the tone of this is asking for help, no disrespect, i'm just frazzled. User talk:TechformTechform (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Machine Gun Kelly (rapper)

Greetings. Hope all is well. I would like to have MGK’s name corrected on wikipedia.  His name currently reads as “Richard Colson Baker”, but it should read “Colson Baker”.  Can you please make sure that every area that references his name is changed to “Colson Baker” CloserNYC (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the name as presented in the article appears to be well-sourced. If you want it changed, you'll need to present reliable sources showing the name as currently reported is incorrect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

inadvertent rm

Hey, if you look at Ceoil's talk, as far as I can tell somehow you inadvertently rm'd my last msg when you were rm'ing that img. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I see you're also protesting the concept of archiving talk pages. Up the academy, brother! Stick it to The Man. :-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That Userbox

When I logged on today, I noticed that you had removed the non-free image (or whatever it was called), which I am completely fine with. However, this means the box currently has no image. Is there a way I could obtain a valid image for the box? Awesome Diamonds (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if this is against policy, but I will quickly bump this Awesome Diamonds (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Image of book cover on David Meade (author)

Thanks for your comment that " it is well-settled that WP:NFCC does not allow nonfree book cover images to be used as general illustrations in author bios." I was not aware of this convention (obviously) - to avoid making similar mistakes in future, can you point me to where such decisions are available? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: I wasn’t aware of it either. Btw, I’m still doing improvements to the David Meade article on occasions. I did found out that his prediction was also labeled as hype in a news Washington Post has relating to th Doomsday Clock. I also changed the section “Reception” to “Reactions”. —LovelyGirl7 talk 01:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Refer to WP:NFC#cite_note-3 for more specific details, but non-free cover art (e.g., book, album, magazine, etc.) is generally allowed when it's used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the works in question. So, if someone wants to write an article about the book (see WP:NBOOK) and use the file for identification purposes in that article, then that type of non-free use would typically be considered OK. Use of non-free cover art in other articles or sections of other articles is much harder to justify and the long-standing consensus has been that it usually only considered apporpriate when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Simply saying that person A wrote book B and then adding a non-free image of book B's cover is highly unlikely to be sufficient context to satisfy NFCC#8, which is why I agree with HW's assessment of the non-free use in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: That Planet X book was written by Meade himself. Do you think the article is fine without it though? —LovelyGirl7 talk 02:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I think it's fine to mention that Meade wrote the book, but I don't think you need to see a cover of the book to understand that. If you want to add more content specifically related to the book's cover to the article (e.g., perhaps there was some controversy over its selction, Meade is also an artist who created the cover, or it otherwise was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources), then it might be possible to justify the non-free use of the file in the article. However, a cover image is not needed simply because Meade wrote the book and there is content in the article that says he wrote the book. That type of use is considered to be pretty much WP:DECORATIVE and is typically not allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: It does kinda suck that the cover of Meade’s book isn’t aloud in the article due to Wikipedia policies. I think my article looks good, with or without it. What about a picture of David Meade (would it work better than the Planet X book)? —LovelyGirl7 talk 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

A freely licensed or public domain image of Meade could be used, but a non-free image of him would most likely not meet WP:FREER. In general, non-free images of living persons are only rarely considered acceptable under certain specific conditions (see item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for some of these). This is because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy encourages us to use free licensed images of living whenever such content exists or there is a reasonable expection that it can be created. People might not know who Meade really is, but if he's out in public giving interviews or making other appearances such as book signings, etc. then it seems reasonable to expect that someone could take a photo of him, and then upload it to Commons under a free license. You can if you want try to email the copyright holders of any images you may see online of Meade per WP:PERMISSIONS and see it you can get them to agree to release them or donate them under a free license accepted by Wikipedia. Maybe Meade or his representatives would be willing to donate an image per WP:DONATEIMAGE.

Finally, just one minor but very important thing about Wikipedia. You wrote in you last post I think my article looks good, with or without it. Techically, there are no "my articles" in Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Ownership of content; in other words, the subject and creator of a article do not have a final editorial control over the article's content. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and article improvements are made by being bold and through consensus. Everytime you click the "Publish changes" button, you are basically agreeing to give anyone anywhere in the world permission to revise or even remove whatever content you just added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, @Marchjuly: that's one mistake I won't make again. Now I'll go and make a different mistake instead... --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I was talking about the book cover (that my article is fine with or without it. I do see some David Meade images on Google Images, but I wonder which one will Wikipedia accept (or where do you find the license for them)? For example, I found this one [65] for example, but I wonder where does it say which license it comes from. —LovelyGirl7 talk 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

My comment about your referring to David Meade (author) as "my article" has nothing to do with image use. As I posted, there are no "my articles" on Wikipedia per WP:OWN, so even though you may have created the article written about Meade, it is technically not your article so to speak. As for the image you linked to, its best to assume that any content you find online is protected by copyright unless (1) it clearly says that it has been released under a free license compatible with WP:COPY or (2) you have a very strong reason to believe that the content falls wthin the public domain. In the case of (1), you still need to be careful because quite a number of people, companies, organizations, etc. upload photos, etc. that they do not hold the copyright on to their websites, and some of these then might even mistakenly claim ownership over whatever they upload. This might be fine for them, but it's not fine for Wikipedia or Commons. Regarding public domain (case (2)), this typically means that the content is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, or so old that its copyright is considered to have expired. There are other reasons why things on in the public domain, but complexity (or lack thereof) and age seem to be two of the main ones.

The image of Meade you linked to was uploaded to some organization's website. It seems unlikely that they are the original creators of the image, rather whoever wrote this probably just found the photo online and decide to use it for the story. The photo looks like it's attributed to "Planet X News", so maybe they own the copyright on the image. You might want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for help because someone there might be able to figure out were the image originally came from and how its licensed. Maybe the original creator of the image did release it under a free license, but that needs to be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you. I brought up "my article" when I was refering to the Planet X book image. I will ask media copyright questions about the Meade images (I did). --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Awards being added from ip

• 156.194.53.205 (talk · contribs)

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I reverted this ip's addition of multiple awards to Stormy Daniels, because it looks too similar to past award spamming. You seem to keep good track of which awards are spam or not noteworthy. I'd appreciate your help figuring out which of the awards this ip has added should remain, if any. --Ronz (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

'

Problematic editor

Saw your comments at the AfD on Peter Wang (cadet) and I think you hit the nail on the head. Check out bottom of my talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Precious

integrity of living persons

Thank you for articles around science fiction, such as The Pirates of Zan and The Planet on the Table, illustrated by cover art, for Kenneth S. Fagg, for many "create as redirect" and deletion discussions, for watching over biographies of living persons, and editors who are living persons, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

seconded. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I used to see you around more, swung by your page to see whether you're still active. Delighted to see that your are!E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1867 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

FYI that this has been filed by another user. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, I'm Anchorvale. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, AJ McCarron, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Lisa Lane

The SI image in the Lisa Lane article is eligible as it meets the Non-free media rationale for Lisa Lane. IQ125 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Robert Conroy Goldston image

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I saw you removed File:Robert Goldston01.jpg from the article. Just in case you didn't notice, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg. There is a claim that this person is dead, thus the article is not really a BLP. I had a lengthy discussion about this with the closing admin at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/August#Close for FFD about the non-free use of File:Robert Goldston01.jpg just for reference. I'm not saying the file shouldn't be removed. I did tag it for speedy deletion per NFCC#1, but that was declined here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That FFD discussion really shows off a major problem with NFCC enforcement. NFC policy requires that a disputed image be removed from an article absent consensus that it meets NFCC requirements. However, FFD practice too often treats no consensus (on NFCC issues) as defaulting to keep. I think the closing admin would have been better advised to remove the image from the bio page and, unless either a satisfactory rationale was provided or an appropriate use was found in a different article within the standard time, let automatic deletion take its course. Which is what should happen now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW he is most certainly dead. It just cant be reliably sourced online. I expect there are print obits. The main problem is that he died in Palma in the Spanish islands in the early 80's. The L’Enciclopèdia d’Eivissa i Formentera (a local council/governement encyclopedia specific to the islands) shows him as dying in 1982, and there are forum posts from his grandchildren online that state that date (and place). As one of them said - 'No one asked us'. Best bet if you wanted a reliable source would be to try and get hold of some newspapers from the time. Otherwise I agree with everything HW has said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't that qualify as an RS? At first glance, it looks better than all sorts of sites that have been deemed acceptable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I would broadly agree. And tbh I would expect the local government (or chamber of commerce/tourism, its something along those lines) to keep tabs on its notable citizens and know if they were dead or not. But I dont speak Spanish, so I would be happier if a Spanish-speaking editor would give the site a once-over regarding its setup, who runs it, who contributes etc. Its certainly the most authoritive non-primary thing I found online. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
      • @HW: I agree with what you posted, especially about "no consensus" defaulting to "keep" for NFCC discussion and everything about the NFCC does, IMO, suggest that it shouldn't be done. However, there are those who think an NFCC FFD should be closed exactly the same as any other XfD, so they keep no consensus files. Until this is clearly clarified one way or another, it's likely to continue. FWIW, I rfu'd the file, but that was declined; I then FFD'd the file and the best argument that the other side come come up with was basically WP:BDP is unrealistic. I also asked at BLPN about whether Goldston can be treated as deceased for Wikipedia's purposes and the clear consensus was that he can't and that the file shouldn't be used. I meant to go back and FFD it again, but forgot about the file until the article showed up on my watchlist when you removed it.

@OID: I tried to find something to source his death, but never had any luck. Maybe asking about the one you found at RSN could help determine whether it's an RS. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Update: The file has been re-added to the article. This why letting automatic deletion take its course does not always go as planned, especially with F5 removals. So, it's probably best to start another FFD on this so that it can be resolved once and for all since the only other option would likely lead to edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• HW and Only in death. I didn't directly ping either of you, but if you'd like to comment at WT:NFC#Non-free use of File:Sue Williams.jpg since there are similarities between the non-free use of that file and the non-free use of the Goldston file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

About Removing An Image

Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have removed the image File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg from Mosharraf Karim for staying in infobox. You gave a reason that it was non-free and stayed in infobox. I have a question, cant a image stay at infobox if it is non-free? Thank you.- Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the rule deals with nonfree images in BLPs, that is, biographies of living persons. The general rule, based on Wikimedia Foundation policy, is that nonfree images of living persons aren't allowed in their biographies, with very limited exceptions for cases like prisoners serving life sentences and fugitives. See WP:NFCC#1. However, there are also narrow exceptions when the image itself is the subject of specific sourced commentary in the article. In those cases, which are rare, the image should be placed inline, adjacent to the text commenting on it. An infobox image is intended as a general illustration, not one illustrating a specific section of text. I'd also note that the file page contains two significant errors -- first, the page provides no reason why the file cannot be replaced by a free image, which generally means that it cannot be used; second, it states that the file is available under a noncommercial use license (which is to some degree relevant to our use of news agency and similar images), but the source page actually has a standard copyright notice and the statement "Any unauthorized use or reproduction of The Daily Star content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action". That is not a noncommercial use release or license. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, Thank you very much. I got the point.- Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Victor Dubowitz

As per the above, you removed the image above, which I have restored. Don't remove it, the person is dead. It is courteous to leave a message. scope_creep (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the article subject provided has died. The use rationale says nothing about the subject having died. He is currently listed as alive in university directories. He was making public appearances as recently as last spring. You need to provide reliably sourced information otherwise to demonstrate your claim. Otherwise, you have no business telling any other editor not to remove presumptive NFCC policy violations. Period. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Victor Dubowitz. You should communicate, but your bolshie parasitical attitude sets people off, because you don't communicate. I have now got a red disruptive warning, the first ever, because you don't want to talk. scope_creep (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your input regarding my illegal and seemingly politically motivated block. It seems that there’s just no way to edit articles that are sensitive to some people without them getting their feelings hurt and claiming bad faith. They want the article to say exactly what they want and nothing more. BigDwiki (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC) BigDwiki (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Non-free image inclusion or exclusion criteria clarification

Hello, I am requesting your input in the talk page on Richard Felix Staar. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Again, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have just noticed the detailed answer to another question addressed to you, under the title About Removing An Image in your talk page here. The exact question that the other user was having about removal of an image in infobox of an article that is a BLP, is the question I was having as well. In both cases you are citing WP:NFCC#1 as the reason for deletion. Then you go on in elaborating further by saying among other things that "that nonfree images of living persons aren't allowed in their biographies". Could you please point me to the official rules of Wikipedia that say that? So far I have only found WP:NFCC#1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."; I could see how the part that says "or could be created" is maybe the key clause that your point is based in. However, that NFCC#1 is so brief that it can have multiple interpretations, and I wonder if somewhere else in the official rules of Wikipedia that point/rule is unpacked. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The headnote to WP:NFCC directs users to WP:NFC for fuller discussion of the applicable standards. WP:NFC#UUI#1 states that nonfree "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing" are not acceptable uses; while there are very narrow exceptions, those apply to prisoners serving lengthy or life sentences, fugitives and insurgents, and others in similar situations, not applicable here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair Use Image

I am going to be direct. In March 2018, you deleted a fair use image on the page of a recording artist. You gave the reason for removal as "obviously replaceable." The image is from a 1969 Newsweek article and clearly not replaceable, (the photo was taken fifty years ago). The image lived on the artist's Wikipedia page and on Wikipedia Commons for many years, providing educational, encyclopedic information for readers. Not only did you delete the image, you removed the entire image file from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons, so that there is no history of the image. Either you do not understand the rules of fair use, or this was an act of spite, or both. The image was backed up by a clear, well reasoned rational. Because you deleted the entire image file, you made it impossible for anyone to read the rational. You unilaterally made the decision that no one can ever see the image and rational. If you were incorrect in removing the image, you are making sure no one can question your decision. Your motives are suspect. This appears to be a case of vandalism. Magdalamar (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Just for reference, Hullaballoo Wolfwitz is not an administrator, and only administrators can delete files, etc. HW can, of course, nominate files for deletion or discussion, or be bold and remove them if he feels that their use does not comply with relevant policy and guidelines just like any other editor can, but such files are typically reviewed by an administrator before being deleted. If you know the name of the deleted file, then you can figure out which administrator deleted the file and ask them for clarification. If you don't remember the file's name, then the name of the article from which it was deleted can be used to track down the image. If a mistake was made, then it was made in good faith and perhaps the file can be restored via WP:REFUND. A deleted file is not gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view and can be restored if whatever issue led to its deletion is later resolved. Moreover, when files are removed, the uploader is typically notified on their user talk page by either the editor who did the removing, a bot, or an editor who works on file maintenance issues; so, if you uploaded the file, you should've received a notification regarding it.

Some other things. Commons does not accept non-free content per c:COM:FAIR. So, if the file was mistakenly uploaded to Commons, then it was properly deleted. Also, being in use for a long time is not typically a good indication of valid non-free use per WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED; it could just be an indication that nobody noticed the file's non-free use did not comply with relevant policy until HW did. Finally, you should be careful about WP:NOTVANDAL since removing inappropriate non-free images is not vandalism at all, but a necessary action. Once again, if a mistake was made, then the best thing to do is to ask for clarification instead of making accusations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This one's an open-and-shut case. The disputed nonfree image was used in, and depicts, Lotti Golden. That article includes three free images of Golden, a living person, so nonfree images of her are generally barred by WP:NFCC#1. The article includes no discussion of the disputed image, a bog-standard publicity shot. Magdalamar appears to be an SPA who edits primarily on matters related to Golden and probably has WP:COI issues. Their talk page shows that quite a few other images of Golden they uploaded have been deleted for failing NFCC requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really invested to go change it, but that last section 're-emergence in 2010' is playing silly buggers with sourcing. The photo is not listed as one of the photographers favorites (as the WP article indicates) in context its talking about the level of fame of the subject and its impact on the photos. Secondly there is no indication its anything to do with a 're-emergence' in that source, since it doesnt indicate when the photo was from (previously unpublished means it could be from anywhere in her career) and its a restrospective of a photographer, nothing to do with her personally. I havnt taken a look at the rest of the article, but if the use of sources is that... flexible a talkpage stalker might want to have a browse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Nicole Louise Pearce – Image

Regarding your position on the image previously at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole-Pearce-Paul-Luckman-1982-Booking-Photo-Mug-Shot.png:

"This is a replaceable nonfree image of a living person who has served their prison sentence, and is therefore not allowed under NFCC#1. There is no policy-based claim of an exception for "booking photos"

I will be resubmitting this image with the following further explanation:

This media is a booking photo of Paul Luckman, now known as Nicole Pearce, produced in the regular operations of Queensland and New South Wales Police, widely circulated in print, television and later film, from May 7, 1982 and onwards, in the public domain.

The picture preserves the individual's unique brush with the law for posterity.

Source: New South Wales Police department of photographic records.

Found at various independent sources: For example: The Canberra Times, Friday 3 Dec 1982; Buried Alive, Crime Investigation Australia, Channel 9, Season 3, Episode 9; and Daily Mail (Online) "Australia’s most sadistic child killer Robin Reid, who shaved victims’ hair as trophies, will kill again if released", Candace Sutton, 16 May 2014 (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2628740/Sadistic-Australian-child-killer-Robin-Reid-maim-kill-boys-released-prison.html).

Author: Unknown photographer, source only given as "New South Wales Police department of photographic records." No explicitly freely-licensed image is suitable for illustrating the subject's arrest, is likely to be found or become available, however this image has been repeatedly published across print, television and film since 1982.

The work used will be of inherently lower quality than the original photograph reducing the risk of any competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for any value of versions held by any possible copyright owner.

{{Non-free use rationale 2 | Description = Booking photograph. | Author = New South Wales Police | Source = Released to print, television and film media from May 7, 1982, extensively republished/rebroadcast/rescreened since. | Article = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Louise_Pearce | Purpose = Illustrate convicted offender. | Replaceability = None. | Minimality = Extra low-resolution and size, already public domain, usually without copyright citation. | Commercial = 0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimescrutineer (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

How nice. Since that has nothing to do with complying with NFCC#1, I'll remove it again. You also don't need a mugshot to understand that someone was arrested, so it's an obvious failure of NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have permission to use this image and it will hold online in perpetuity. Quick, proud, smarmy and mindless deletion of images serves no one. Thankfully more prudent editors ultimately prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimescrutineer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Charming. But perpetuity apparently ran out earlier today. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Sonu Tatawat

WP:UPNOT: An editor's FULL listing of social media, website and email addresses is not "standard user page of new user" as it is NOT related to Wikipedia. Every page I've tagged similar to that were deleted by administrators. If you disagree, feel free to comment. --Cahk (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:UPNOT does not say anything of the kind. It does, however, say that In general other users' user pages are managed by that user. Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion (see above). However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}, {{db-copyvio}} or {{db-spamuser}}, other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion.

Take special care to speak appropriately and explain the concern; many users will take it as a personal affront or attack if an unknown user announces they are going to delete a userspace image or page and an uncivil or heavy duty approach can discourage new users who are unaware of expectations and might enjoy contributing. Remember that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two are usually allowed.

Your failure to comply with these requirements is far more disruptive than a new editor's clumsiness, and your own userpage, festooned with crappy self-celebrating userboxes, has rather little to do with Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. Pay attention to the beam in your own eye. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mohsin khan and Shivangi joshi

what is your problem huh? why are you removing the authentic information from the actor pages? if you have any problem talk to me inside of removing it. stop acting like the admin here and if u have guts reply me back which you haven't. Saad123890 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Saad123890, admin here. Please don't threaten other editors. I'm looking at your work right now. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

mohsin khan

you talk about BLP how should i post about mohsin khan age? which you remove? can i even post his real age? with a credible source? Saad123890 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights of files

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Can you please check the copyrights of this image ? Does it comply with the policy?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks generally OK to me; thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Thank a ton for your valuable reply. One last thing: Can I re-upload the deleted images with the same copyright tag as of this image, which I mentioned above?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In general, no. Copyrighted book cover images are allowed only in articles regarding the books themselves, not in the author's biography. I believe the deleted images were used only on biography pages. There was one case where I substituted a properly licensed image from an Amazon page, and if you feel strongly that the cover you photographed was a better choice, you may replace that one, which is used only in the article about the book itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your reply of concern. So I decide to re-upload all deleted images (now with copyrights as same as of image) but will not use it in author-biography articles. Do you agree?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to create the article (at least the basic text) about each book before you upload its cover. WP:NFCC#7 requires that nonfree images be used in at least one article, and there's an automatic process that quickly tags and removes unused nonfree images. Most (maybe all) of the upload wizards won't let you upload a nonfree image until you identify an article it's going to be used in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for the guidance. | --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Gary Williams copyright

Hi there. Apologies for not messaging you before. I didn't understand why a CD cover image was being removed when I get putting it back. I am still learning Wikipedia and I checked on the history page to see you found an issue with the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosents (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Puder image

Hello, I'm the original poster for this image File:2004-11-04-WWE-SmackDown-Tough-Enough-Daniel-Puder-Kimura-Locks-Kurt-Angle.jpg and I would like to know how to resolve this issue.

You stated that this image is a replaceable nonfree image, but this is the only known image of the event stated in the Daniel Puder article and so it is not replaceable, and I state that this image falls under fair use as for the reasons I state below:

The requirements of "don't use larger excerpts of a single work than necessary" and "don't use images of higher resolution than necessary" has been addressed, as the image is only a crop of a screenshot from a Youtube video and not the whole screenshot, the resolution of the Youtube video is low resolution and the image has been resized by a Wikipedia bot. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

After reading your user talk page, I've decided not to pursue this issue any longer and allow the non-free fair-use image to be deleted as per the rules of Wikipedia, the reason I've elected to not pursue this issue any longer is to avoid being called a blithering idiot by you as you had done to another user, I'm a very sensitive person and your attitude towards others in your user talk makes me nervous.

Please do not take this personally, I'm just a very sensitive person. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mai Lin

I saw you restored the redirect for that article. Is there a place that the longstanding consensus is documented? As a newer NPP I would love to read it/be able to reference it in the future. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

File:VITA mission logo.jpg

Hi, I see you removed this file from the article Paolo Nespoli. If I can't put it in a larger format, Is it fair use to put it as a mission logo patch in the astronaut infobox, like all other mission patches? Note that ESA allows Free usage for educational purposes, just not a total free license and that's why it cant be in commons. Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Per the WMF, noncommercial/educational-only permission is insufficient to permit use of an otherwise nonfree image. Because the subject's participation on the mission can be fullu conveyed by text alone, WP:NFCC#8 bars use of the nonfree image. The same principle has been uniformly applied to military insignia, without significant disagreement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Image copyrights

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
Would you please recommend a copyright tag for a non-free image of a person (like without applying any OTRS license as done in here).
You can check this image for example. Will a Non-free use rationale, Non-free use rationale 2 or CopyrightedFreeUse is applicable?
Thank you, --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonfree images of living persons generally can't be used to illustrate their biographies, absent certain unusual circumstances (eg, prisoners serving life sentences, long-term fugitives. An active TV actor certainly doesn't fall into any of the exceptions. Wait for a free image to turn up. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Longhair\^talk 00:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another example of an admin with misplaced priorities and double standards. So it's perfectly OK with you for an editor to repeatedly post harassing messages on my talk page, violate 3RR, commit and support BLP violations, and demonstrate a substantial and sustained lack of competence. But I used the term "twit" (a term I've seen admins direct at individuals without consequence or comment. After years of enduring far worse comments than "twit", which have generally been allowed to go by without sanction or censure by our collectively feckless corps of administrators, I am hardly surprised, but it certainly supports my opinion that you are one of too, too many admins who is a net negative to the Wikipedia project. Keep up the bad work! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Guernica

Hello. I saw you've removed the image of Picasso's Guernica (File:PicassoGuernica.jpg) from the articles on the museum in which it is exhibited and from the Madrid page. These are surely fair uses of the image, as it defines the museum to a large extent and is one of, if not the, major tourist attractions of Madrid. I've never tried to format a fair use template, can you assist with these so the image and its caption can be returned to both pages? The painting was a "gift to the people of Spain" from Picasso, and thus should be an easy affirmative fair use question. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The nonfree image is not at all necessary to understand the fact ostensibly being illustrated. Therefore the uses fail NFCC#8. No valid use rationales can be constructed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Would disagree on this point. As quoted on the NFCC page "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". Many non-visual-art savvy readers who would not recognize the name of the painting would recognize the famous image, and would then realize that it is a key fixture of both the city and the museum. So, at least very arguably, valid use is clear. If you can't help with the formatting of a valid use templates, can a page lurker either assist with this or give me pointers on how to go forward? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That function is served by the link to the article on the painting itself. Your argument proves too much -- we generally can't use nonfree images of people mentioned in articles, even if their names aren't readily recognizable. Your point has been argued and rejected before. WP:FFD and WP:MCQ discussions may provide further guidance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Has it been argued on such a major item? A museum would be defined by its collection, and in this case Guernica is not only the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía's major attraction but may be Spain's most recognizable national treasure (hence the Madrid page use, not to mention its potential use on the 'Spain' article itself). A link to the painting's page is fine, but does not have the impact of "Look what's in this museum!" to a visual-arts-uneducated reader browsing Madrid museum pages to see what to take in on their visit. Most importantly, perhaps, is the fact that Picasso gifted the painting to the people of Spain, so its fair use perimeters are arguably extended to these two pages (and even the 'Spain' page itself). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on remaining non-free image use

Hello, I have been working to educate myself about WP:NFCC after I saw you removed an image use from The Phenomenauts. Would you have time to give your opinion on non-free image use for the remaining two non-free images in that article? It appears you have a lot of experience in this area :)

I posted a question on the WP:MCQ here. I'm wondering if my understanding is correct. It seems like there is a stronger argument for using the remaining two non-free images, since each appears in a section about the item itself, and the section specifically explains and deals with the non-free image being depicted. Is that accurate?

I have tried to improve my understanding of appropriate non-free image use. I have re-read through WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, Arguments to avoid, this Signpost entry on reviewing non-free images, a dozen pages from the Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions archive on "contextual significance", as well as your talk page here. I am working to gain a better understanding.

Thanks for your time! --Culix (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Would you please settle the image issue here.. .
Reference: Link.
Thank you, --Gpkp (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help regarding images

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz You recently removed two images I had uploaded on pages of 'Ashok Malhotra' and 'Anoop Malhotra" because it seems they did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I apologize for the error. I am new to Wikipedia while you are an experienced editor, please could you suggest what changes are required so as to make the images acceptable if you feel they will help to improve the articles? If not we can leave it as it is. There was an older image on the former page that I removed before adding the new one, or perhaps should I replace that? In the meantime reading your comment that - 'wikipedia only' is not acceptable, I have removed that condition from the image pages. It was something additional I padded by mistake not realizing its implication. The family had given the images for use in Wikipedia on my request for use in these articles or where ever else that article is used but it seems they could not be bothered to release it elsewhere in public domain first. I shall await your response before doing anything or jsut leave things as they stand. Thanks. appreciate the work you do at wikipedia as your medals suggest. it is a useful resource for the world. Regards Shyamu111--Shyamu111 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ken McPherson

So what's wrong with http://www.ccfpa.co.uk/?p=29233? Not to mention it was asked at OTRS to be added. If you like I can ask the OP to show a death certificate - because unlike most countries, death certificates can be obtained by anyone in the UK and so are verifiable. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I found a proper newspaper ref as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Madrid and Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Coldcreation (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.126.210 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related

This doesnt seem compliant for all uses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Your talk page edit summary gave me a lol few moments. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring Western painting

Your recent editing history at Western painting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Coldcreation (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ronald McDonald

It's this user, who admits they are doing it here, as well as how awful they think you, me and Wikipedia in general is. And yet they continue to edit here. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Laura Summer

I recently made an edit for Mark Evanier on Wikipedia. He also asked if the Laura Summer page you have in the draft status could be added to the mainspace. Can you help him out? Retrogamer (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lana Rhoades

Why blank it? Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Because BLP violations, such as the single unsourced sentence here, are not allowed in Wikipedia, regardless of namespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the process of making the article. At least give me a bit of time to add sources etc. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This bio was deleted before, and the deletion upheld at DRV. Recreating it with crap sourcing and BLP violations is not constructive editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

regarding your fresh edits

Sorry to contact you here, I wasn't much interested to add that section at all which you deleted , But as the news on the internet clearly specifies that , I added it without any interest , If you think those controversies are useful to Wikipedia Universe anyway else or suitable for the artist who makes that article , then , you may revert the edit , I will add source in free time ! But wait for 24 hrs before deleting them again ! Crispgatoglitz (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Crispgatoglitz: You were WP:BOLD when added that content to the article, but Wikipedia is not news and not everything about Fadnis needs to be added to Manjari Fadnis. Hullaballo Wolfwitz was correct in removing that unsourced content per WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES; so, if you wish to further discuss this then you should do so at Talk:Manjari Fadnis. Just start a new section and explain why you feel this content should be included. Also, it's your WP:BURDEN to add supporting citations to content when you add the content the first time or it can be removed by any any editor; this is particulary true for content about living persons seen as contentous. So, don't tell other editors to wait 24 hours before removing content; instead, you wait until you have all of the sources ready to go before adding the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Lorrie Collins.jpg

Hi HW. You've got some pretty keen spidey-sense when it comes to non-free bio images, so I'm wondering if you'd assess this file. Lorrie Collins just died, and a non-free was added for identification purposes to the article. I believe that was done in good faith, but her career did span a number of years and I'm wondering whether there might be something of her flosting around on Ebay or somewhere which didn't have it's copyright removed or might otherwise be PD for some reason. Maybe even a Flick'r image somewhere released under a CC license Wikipedia can accept. I've started a discussion about this on the uploader's user talk at User talk:CAWylie#File:Lorrie Collins.jpg, so perhaps you can provide some suggestions there. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you input here. The file was reuploaded to Commons under a free license, so things appear resolved. Was wondering if you'd mind helping out with an image for Benny Hill. The one currently be used has been tagged for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benny Hill.JPG. A non-free was uploaded to replace the Comomns file, but was deleted per WP:G7 after I tagged the file for rfu. I'm wondering if you can suggest any good places where another free equivalent of Hill might be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday

Despite getting blocked on your other account Hillbillyholiday and still edit warring with your pointless edits which add nothing - how are you still not getting blocked on this account? Incredible. Must be clever with your proxies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingrayvibes (talk • contribs)

I note that user:Hillbillyholiday is indeed currently indeffed. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) And the point of your noting this fact is to assist a WP:SPA whose only edit was to cast aspersions and accuse another editor of WP:SOCK without providing any diffs or anything else in support? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC); [Note: Striking previous post since it was an over reaction on my part as has been explained at User talk:Marchjuly#Please discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)]

Marilyn Michaels

Stop your edit warring on the Marilyn Michaels article. If it is not vandalism, it is indistinguishable from it. The article is sourced with reliable third-party sources, and contains plain facts with sources, and almost no adjectives. Whether some people were once sock puppets is irrelevant. What the article looked like years ago is irrelevant. I have explained my reasons on the talk page, specifically. You have not. You have only given vague generalities, and made NO attempt to correct whatever it is that bothers you, simply blanking a performer's entire career, which is a clear violation of editing protocol. I suspect it's personal, since your actions make no sense whatsoever. You blanking the career leaves an article where a reader would have no idea why the article even exists. You have never explained your reasoning, if there is any reasoning. Carlo (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop being a dishonest jackass. The crapfest you have repeatedly reinstated was rejected by consensus, and you stand alone in proxying for the banned/blocked sockfarmer who wrote it. The original author has been caught in repeated lies, including the brazen falsehood that the subject or a TV show she "starred" in won an Emmy Award -- even though she didn't star in the show (and didn't even appear in more than half the episodes) and the show was only nominated for, but did not win, a technical Emmy for a single episode the subject did not appear in. (And despite its established falsity, Carlo has repeatedly restored that claim). Now stay off my talk page until you're willing to discuss matters honestly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I totally relate to what you're going through. I've had to deal with a lot of unreasonable and stupid people through all forms of Wikipedia (DYK, AFD, GA, and so on) who have a zero understanding of how notability and Wikipedia articles work and I wanted to say I'm sorry to have to deal with such terrible users. I'm on your side and I'm wishing the best of luck to ya, buddy. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dana Plato image

Hi HW. Do you think a suitable free image of Dana Plato can be found to replace the non-free screenshot currently being used in main infobox? There is actually a free image of Plato already being used in the article, so I tagged the non-free with {{rfu}}; however, it was declined because free one's quality isn't very good. So, I've started looking around on eBay, etc. for another possible free equivalent and found some, but I'm not sure how to check their respective copyright statuses. There are a couple of images which look like they might have been taken prior to 1978, so maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} or some other type of PD is possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've become convinced that, at least for US performers active enough before the visible-copyright-notice requirement was repealed, there are almost certainly free images out there; it's just a question of digging long enough. A cursory ebay search turns up truckloads of images without notices, but not demonstrating original publication. (And an unhealthy number of them are jailbait cheesecake) But this one looks plausibly free [66], but needs dewatermarking, and I suspect there are more. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that bit of digging. "PD-US-no notice" seems to only be for content published prior to 1978, but the number of possibilities would greatly increase if PR shots/stills from the Diff'rent Strokes years might also be PD. As you stated, there are some "jailbait cheesecake images" out there that probably are not suitable; there might also be a mugshot photo of her from later in life which might be PD as well, but again there's WP:MUG which might deserve consideration even though she died in 1999. However, something from 1978 (when the show first aired) until 1985 when it was canceled, might be appropriate. Just curious about the one you found. Do you think the bar code at the top of back of the photo might be considered a copyright notice of some sort? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Image Removal on Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Page

Hey! Hullaballo Wolfowitz. Please explain about your edits regarding removal of the image from Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj page. The image is approved by Wikipedia as it is a screenshot from a webpage; here's the link for the same- https://skrm.sos.org/gallery/tw/?id=3 And if there's is a problem with it, you are very kindly requested to help and guide me on how can it be improved. --sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC, our policy regarding nonfree/copyrighted content, rather strictly prohibits the use of copyrighted images of living persons, absent unusual circumstances not present or claimed in this case. Images are presumed copyrighted unless an applicable license or release can be demonstrated, and the front page of the source website states "© 2018 Science of Spirituality. All rights reserved". No one has "approved: this image for use. If there is a suitable license on the source website, you must cite it exactly on the file page. Frankly, I doubt such a license exists, given the homepage copyright notice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your guidance, will keep this in mind.--sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop excising images with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox"

You have been using the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox" to justify excising images for a long time. Yet, honestly is there anything in WP:NFCC, or any other policy, to justify an excision, on that justification?

Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. I suggest that your general practice of simply excising images, rather than discussing what you see as questionable non-free rationales is not in the best interest of the project.

I strongly encourage you to engage with the uploader, unless they have a proven record of vandalism. We have no training manual. You risk chasing away good faith new contributors, or exhausting the patience of good faith experienced contributors, when you act precipitously. Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-free images in biographies of living people are generally prohibited, excepting some extreme circumstances, and are subject to removal. If the image is Non-free, the subject is alive, then a free image can likely be sourced or created, so the Non-free image gets removed. If you don't like this, you need to take it up with the WMF or suggest a change to the relevant policies and guidelines at the village pump, and given where the bar is set, this is unlikely to change. For a non-free image of a living person to be used, there needs to be a VALID fair use rationale. And there are almost none for living people. And while a Non-free image is being used in an article without a valid reason, there are legal concerns. Which is why they are removed until one can be provided. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to Only in death's cogent comments, except that since an infobox image is intended as a general illustration, rather than related to a specific point in the article. the possible arguments for using a nonfree image there are particularly weak. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• If you think you have a valid, policy-based reason why a non-free image shouldn't be used, then using the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox" instead of that reason is a very very bad idea. If you think you have a valid, policy-based reason, then use that as your edit summary. Making it hard for a good faith uploader to understand why you think their upload was a mistake is a time-wasting act of incivility. Please also bear in mind that, like the rest of us, you too are subject to normal human fallibility. You could be the one whose judgement is off. I think you were dead wrong to be so dogged in your attempts to remove the image of Florin Fodor. And I think you were making a big mistake to justify your excision because the image was in an infobox. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting tendentious nonsense on my talk page is a very very very very bad idea. I have been using the same basic edit summary for years, hundreds upon hundreds of times (actually more than 1500 times). You appear to be the only editor who objects to it. You are very very likely to be the one whose judgement is off. I strongly suggest you heed your own warning about exhausting the patience of good faith experienced contributors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is in times like these that I believe you should reference my essay on teachable moments User:Geo_Swan/opinions/Teachable_moments.142.158.153.179 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Trying to work out an image for a lede

I took your : as hint and am trying to work out an image for a lede (I didn't even notice the : and assumed I had inserted it during one of my edits, just kept on going with the talk page discussion). We need that image on the talk page for the moment. It is context during the discussion, right now.

Can you please hold off on the big hammer until I can get consensus on another lede image. After the outcome you are free to work your will, but please.

Welcome back, anyways. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Does this image's license suitable for that of a living person category?
Thank you, --Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The license does not appear to be valid. The source website (URL misspelled on the file page, BTW) carries a standard copyright notice both on its front page and on its photo gallery page. You need to provide a link to the exact page where the photo is licensed. Otherwise, the rights owner should provide a license via the WP:OTRS process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 03:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

.........Just...

.....passing...........through..... Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't remove the photo unless you have one to replace it with. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Frank Donga

Hello The image on the article "Frank Donga" was uploaded on the claim of Fair Use, which is acceptable. You deleted it for the reason "nonfree image in BLP infobox" I would revert your change pending an explanation to this cause Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pst. Bukkie (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#UUI and point 1 of WP:NFCC - where the subject is still alive (with very very few exceptions) a non-free picture is not allowed on a biography of a living person, as a free picture can be sourced. Wikipedia applies a stricter standard than normal fair use allows. The key part of NFCC is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - for living people, it has been determined that photos of subjects who are still alive and not under extreme conditions (long term incarceration, dictators of north korea etc) a free photo could be created. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Pst. Bukkie. A non-free image of Donga cannot be used per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #1 for the reasons given above by Only in death does duty end; so, I have tagged this file for deletion per WP:F7. Moreover, it appears that this is a reupload of a previously deleted file of the same name (see User talk:Pst. Bukkie#Replaceable fair use File:Frank Donga.jpg) which was deleted for the same reason back in April by an administrator named Explicit.

When you find out that a file you uploaded has been deleted it can be a bit of a shock, especially if you're not sure exactly why. If a file you've upload has been deleted, it's always best to assume there was a reason for it; so, click on the file's link (it will be a red link) and try and see why. If you still are n't sure, then the file's page will show the name of the administrator who deleted it and it's perfectly OK to ask that person or someone else (perhaps at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) to explain why. Pretty much worst thing you can do, however, is simply reupload the same file (or a similar file) which has the same problem or problems. Not only will this surely result in the re-deletion of the new version, but it will also give others the impression that you're not interested in complying with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you repeat this type of things too many times, an adminstrator is likely going to see it as being disruptive and may take further action to prevent you from doing it anymore. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"nonfree image in BLP infobox"

why did you revert my edit with such a vague summary? editing wikipedia should be a learning experience. this isn't elementary school where you're just told "you're wrong".

after rereading the policy based on your second revert, I get why the picture has no place in the article. but that wasn't apparent to me on my first read, and it certainly wasn't "obvious". I should not have to persist to find out what I did wrong. —mountainhead / ? 19:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

and in scrolling back just a few sections, I found that I'm not the first editor to be bothered by this. —mountainhead / ? 19:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Book cover image in co-author's wiki article

See Dominik Bartmanski. Also, there's a notice of an upcoming 2019 co-authored book cited only to the publisher's blurb. Softlavender (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

wp:3RR November 2018

Hello, you are in violation of the wp:3RR rule on both Siouxsie Sioux and the file "Siouxsie-Creaturescolor", you did 5 reverts, each time. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. Woovee (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That's nuttin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz once did 127 reverts in seven minutes in an edit war that several battalions of us were having at Poppy. Ten administrators tried to stop us, but got caught up in friendly fire (and that's why Wikipedia is low on active admins to this day. true story). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg has been deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC#1 per WP:F7: so, it appears that at least one administrator agrees with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment of the file. Just because a non-free has been used in an article for a long-time doesn't mean that it's non-free use automatically complies with (or in this case complied with) Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it could also just as easily mean that file should have been deleted/removed a long time ago but nobody experienced with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy noticed until now.

Finally, I'm not sure what anything at Poppy (singer) has to do with this particular image, and it seems you are just using this as an opportunity to pile on and perhaps rekindle an old dispute. Moreover, it doesn't look as if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has edited that article a single time and there's nothing about Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doing some major edit warring on Talk:Poppy (singer); so, maybe you're thinking of another editor or another article. Anyway, you might want to clarify this at AN3 since your post is being cited as evidence of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit warring (or at least his alleged history of edit warring). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It is? I'll have a look. It was friendly satire, do you really think he reverted 127 reverts in seven minutes? We've kidded each other in the past, or maybe in the present or the future. One of those. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Image of multiple book covers

Can you assess File:HenryGordonBooks001.jpg and also its use in the author's article? Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) That's a Commons file, so there's not much that can be done here; however, it appears to be an obvious derivative work which means that not only the copyright of the photo but also the book covers themselves need to be taken into account. The uploader can claim the photo as "own work" and release it under a free license if they choose to do so, but they can claim copyright ownership over the book covers if they aren't the copyright holder of them. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion; if you'd rather do a c:COM:DR instead, then feel free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've removed the image since the violation is indisputable, and suggested an alternative approach. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks all. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground & Nico release delays

These unfounded accusations made by Lou Reed and Sterling Morrison against Frank Zappa have been published in several sources and the source specifically states that no evidence has been proven that Zappa did, in fact, intend to delay the release of the banana album, so that he could release Freak Out! first. 1.129.105.236 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Can you please elucidate the rationale behind your today's edits, as to Robert Silverberg stuff? FWIW, the discussion was closed, in favor of the merge.Apologies, if I am missing something obvious.Thanks,∯WBG^converse 19:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please show the courtesy and civility required to let people finish working before officiously demanding that other editors justify their editing. A non-admin close of a discussion that's been moribund for nearly a year and a half, based on a vote count rather than weighing arguments, several of which were defective on their face, is not exactly routine, is at best questionable -- especially when the product contains obvious policy violations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alpha 2 (Robert Silverberg anthology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faith of Our Fathers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Shut Up And Eat Your Snowshoes, Geo

Geo Swan believes he is the Edit Summary Sherriff of Wikipedia, and has repeatedly complained about an edit summary that I have used over 1500 times, and that no other had objected to. The whole matter was discussed at some length above, and nobody else supported Geo's position. Nevertheless, Geo brings it up incessantly, here and elsewhere. It's very hard to take Geo seriously, because in the underlying content disputes he has made multiple reversions and changes without any edit summary at all. Geo's tendentious behaviour is most uncivil, even if he avoids using magic words. I will no longer respond to his repetitive nonsense here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When you removed File:Ali_Musa_DaqDuq's_forged_ID_documents.jpg did you not notice this note? Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, once again, I encourage you, in the very strongest possible terms, to comply with the policies and conventions that require you to be polite. Surely you know you are not entitled to use insulting edit summaries, like the one you used in this recent edit? "Stop purposefully playing stupid, Geo Swan. That discussion was over whether the image could be transferred to Commons as free or kept locally as nonfree, It in no way supports using the image in an article without a valid nonfree use rationale, since removal is called for by WP:NFCCE." Similarly, in this edit you characterized my motives as a "spiteful rejection" of consensus. I know you have got to know this kind of language is not acceptable here. You are not a genius, who is not obliged to answer questions, and explain what they think they are doing. Neither am I. Even Jimbo Wales can't expect that he won't be asked to explain himself. I know I have asked you to consider the points I made in Are you a genius many times. I ask you to consider those points, again. I took a look at your last 500 edit summaries. About ten percent of your recent edits have removed nonfree images with an edit summary stating you were doing so because a nonfree image was included in the article's infobox. I failed to find any wikidocument stating nonfree images can't be used in infoboxes. I think I told you this. I don't think you ever explained why your edit summaries contained this claim. Hullaballow Wolfowitz, I have got to be frank here. You make enough assertions that you excised images because they were "obvious" violations of NFCC, where your gut feeling proved wrong, that you should no longer excise images based on your gut feeling. Your gut feelings are not sufficiently reliable. If you placed speedy tags on nonfree images, (1) another set of eyes, that of the closing administrator, would look at your concern; (2) the individual who uploaded the image would get a clear indication of where they were going wrong, if the closing administrator backs up your concern; and (3) if you are the one who is off-base, you get a clear indication of where you went wrong. I strongly encourage you to stop simply excising nonfree images. Images you excise are deleted after seven days. Images you tag with a speedy will be deleted after seven days -- if the closing administrator backs you up. So there is no speed advantage to excision. Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Chrismouse:)

so, just where Chrismousies hidden?

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, hope you have a great festive season. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Honolulu Star Newspaper photo

I didn't notice two things, first, that there have been some changes to the deletion guidelines (I am reviewing them) and second was your edit summary after my first revert referring specifically to NFCC#2. I will look into both as well as your other concerns before making any further reverts.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to the article to address your concerns regarding what you believed were unattributed quotes. They were actually attributed to a newspaper article but that link expired and I have found the current link to that article as well as adding additional book sourcing to the contentious claim made about a living person.

The image itself is mentioned in the article in detail, not just about what the image depicts. A similar image by a different author/photographer had been uploaded by other users previously with, as you state, spurious rational but for a different article and a different rational. That image does have a true market value that Ed Greevy holds for Native Hawaiian activism and his images are regularly used in that market through specific books about the Hawaiian culture and contemporary Hawaiian activism. He is well known for that and is easily demonstrated. This image is from a newspaper which has published this image in multiple book publications ranging from geography to history. Its use falls within Non Free Content Criteria.

I am going to be re-adding the image shortly after I finish completing my comments on the article talk page to address your concerns and attempting to strengthen the rational however, since you might still not agree, please do not delete but nominate for deletion discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a specific page to nominate non free images for deletion. That no longer seems to be the case. Controversial deletion discussions for non free images now seem to be made at: Wikipedia:Files for discussion now.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

One last thing (sorry for all the posts), I believe that this image does not fit criteria for speedy deletion and I have made an honest attempt in good faith to comply to our policies and guidelines as well as you concerns. I believe you are also working in good faith so I ask that after I add the image back, if you still disagree and believe it is not to non free content criteria, that we take a formal nomination discussion route That we discuss it together at the talk page between the two of us..(perhaps either of us can convince the other. If not, then perhaps we need a more formal discussion). Thanks you!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I got sick and was unable to return to this. Since I did not return the image to the article it has been deleted as orphaned. I see no major reason to attempt to return it after deletion, at least not in the near future.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GiantSnowman 14:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"treated like dirt"

I just blocked a vandal who used that catchphrase of yours in article space and edit summaries. I scrubbed most of it because I consider that a kind of harassment (impersonating/implicating you). zzuuzz, should I scrub it from their own talk page too? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: 300Kb of anything repetitive is fairly disruptive, but I'm not bothered either way at this time. I see there's already a little note on Ponyo's talk page. That LTA by the way, if it's the same, would be this one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh my--another prince of humanity. I was trying to compare but the last one was from 2016. Davey2010, you may have an interest in this. zzuuzz, it was pointed out to me that recently retired User:Flooded them with hundreds was also borrowing HW's signature. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Doc, Looking at Ponyos talkpage I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed! ....., Never heard of The Suix or their socks but as I say given the sigs and timing it has to be more than a mere coincidence. –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The two being just days apart certainty sounds fishy to me. Glad that others have also taken note of this. funplussmart (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is triggering me. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, after having read the ANI comments and a bunch of other stuff, I'm thinking that it's most likely one of those trolls who keep a close eye on our community in order to exploit our weak spots and stir the shit pot. One of those a-holes like Vote X or whatever--trolling impersonators using proxies and playing us. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm staring to think so too. funplussmart (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Rodney On the ROQ Vol III featuring Olivia Barash.jpg

The image in question belongs on at least two of the three pages. Please take it to a discussion before unilaterally trying to have it deleted. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 18:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have a better idea. You should review WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, and WP:ROLLBACK and stop committing obvious violations of the governing policies and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Please stop driving edit wars on multiple articles. --evrik ^(talk) 03:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Major Emmerdale storylines image removal

Please explain your rationale behind the image removals before I revert your edits. The images, as I see, have usage rationales (albeit all non-free, as television screenshots), and mostly been in use for 10+ years. Can you offer a fair explanation so that either alternatives can be sourced, or the originals restored? Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As I stated clearly in my edit summaries: first, the uses fails NFCC#8, because the storyline information can be adequately conveyed by text alone, and because the use rationales are generic and invalid -- conspicuously so; consider the "Tom King" image, which is justified by "It's handy to have an image to add to a description of the article", a rationale with no basis in NFC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing about a soap opera, or indeed any television programme, is that the viewer (as opposed to reader) understands the nature of the scenerio by watching the events, as opposed to reading them. NFC#8 does state that the images should be "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", which given the text is describing events that occured relevant to the visual imagery, I personally feel would satisfy the criterion. I take your point about some of the image rationales being less than ideal, but perhaps it would be appropriate to correct these, than to simply obliterate any imagery. I take your view to a certain extent, but can't fully get on board with the conclusion you reached. If you're firm in your view, perhaps it could be passed through RFC (if anything, to ensure that other editors can see consensus one way or the other)? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed quite a few such images from other articles uncontroversially. I see no reason for me to "correct" defective use rationales when I believe the uses do not conform to NFC policy. If you are determined to contest the removal, I suggest you follow the standard process and take the matter to WP:FFD, but I suggest you first review similar past discussions there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I am "determined to contest", but do have reservations about the removal of every image, based on your own opinion of policy, without a discussion taking place. Frankly, I am not expressing concern pertaining to "other articles", particularly if I am unaware of what they are (and it would be an excessive use of time to invest in querying any others you have applied such logic to). FFD does state: "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised." Based on this, my understanding (which may be incorrect, as I have not been previously involved with FFD), would be for the concerned party to list the images for discussion, then act upon whatever decision is reached. I take the view this may be the least controversial approach, particularly as it would allow for a reference point if future edits restore the images against consensus. I don't feel strongly enough that I would contest any potential consensus for removal of all images, but feel given the quantity (and in article percentage terms, 100%), it should at least have some discussion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 04:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note that even before I responded to this complaint, it resulted in the OP being blocked. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Guillaume Morissette.jpg

Hi, I ended up on in essence undoing your last edit on Guillaume Morissette. Non-free should be no problem for a book cover with a fair use rationale explicitly mentioning the target page and the purpose (book cover); I've seen similar fair use rationales on lots of books and albums. BLP + book in one article is slightly odd, but even together it's barely enough for a stub at the moment, splitting the page is no option.
Just revert me if you have a reason for it, I only saw the "non-free orphaned file deletion warning" on the talk page of the uploader, because I edited this talk page for an unrelated reason, and considered the issue as a "low-hanging fruit" (unused => used, all is well if it ends well). –84.46.53.71 (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Remotely related (from my point of view), if there's a general problem with nothingmajor.com not limited to Sasha Grey, this site is used as reference on two other pages. –84.46.52.31 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#File:Guillaume Morissette.jpg. –84.46.52.203 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal life section of Ireland Baldwin's article

Hi,

I'd like to discuss the removal of the personal life section of Baldwin's page. I think that it just needs some tweaking to show the significance to Baldwin's life and career. for the time being I have removed that section until a resolution could be reached.

Thanks for your time, Bunnies959 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)bunnies959

Orphaned non-free image File:Alan E. Nourse (ca. 1963).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alan E. Nourse (ca. 1963).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett image

Hi Hullaballo Wolfwitz. I think this was a good catch on your part since it not only has NFCC issues, but also WP:MUG issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The file was re-added, but I've removed it again and prodded it for deletion. If it's re-added again and deprodded, then it's probably best to start a discussion about it at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Images

Recently you have removed File: Minoo Mumtaz..jpg and Karnail Rana.jpg from their respective pages. Sir as there is no other free image available in both cases as of now, I have added them. These images also qualify in fair image criterion of Wikipedia. Regards. Vrishchik (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Do not add these images back. One has already been deleted for noncompliance with WP:NFCC policy. Absent special circumstances not even claimed here, nonfree (fair use) images may not be used to illustrate the person's biography. This holds even if a free image has not been currently located. Read WP:NFCC amd WP:NFC for more detailed explanations. The governing principles were established by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may not be weakened by user consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Excessive images found on Giant Killers (EP)

I was reviewing album articles and found four album covers on Giant Killers (EP). Just wanted to draw your attention to this page. Mburrell (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed the alternative covers, since the use rational for each says that the cover will "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question"; that is plainly not the case, and no alternative rationale has been provided. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of context along with unfree images

This is fine, I suppose, but may I make a suggestion, since you appear to take it upon yourself to hunt down unfree imagery: In cases where, as you yourself argue, the image is "replaceable by text", why not provide this text at the time you remove the image? Or at the very least transfer the image caption into the article prose instead of simply blanking it alongside the image? I am asking because sometimes I invest considerable effort into researching the origin and content of images, and cite them, with literature etc., in the image description. If the image is deleted for some reason, this research is also lost from view.

In short, when deleting images, for good reason im most cases I am sure, please make sure that no encyclopedic information is lost by the blanking of the image description page. --dab (𒁳) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought the lengthy quote already in the article was sufficient, and felt that the text highlighted by the caption really added nothing substantial to the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Need some help tracking down a ref

Back when Margo Feiden wasn't yet an article, you remarked on the AfC that

The NYTimes reported on March 11, 1961 that a teenage theater troupe led by Feiden was trying to raise $600 to stage its production of "Peter Pan" in an Off-Broadway house. Not exactly Broadway money, even for 1961. (The theatre involved apparently allowed its premises to be used for children/youth theater productions as Sunday matinees.)

If you could dig up that reference or point me in the right direction I would appreciate eversomuch. Also, I seem to remember at least one reviewer said that the cast was made up of High School for the Performing Arts students?...if you have any idea where I could find a ref for that statement that would be *awesome*. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear God, is Feiden back again? She's so shamelessly self-promotional you'd think she was part of the Trump or Kardashian families. Here's the link

https://www.nytimes.com/1961/03/11/archives/teenage-troupe-trying-peter-pan-for-off-broadway.html?searchResultPosition=1

The article title, "Teen-Age Troupe Trying 'Peter Pan' For Off Broadway", pretty much says almost all we need to know; the article also reports that the cost of staging the production would be $600 -- which, even in 1961, couldn't possibly stage a professional production in Manhattan. But, hey, if you read the court decisions in the fights between Feiden and Al Hirschfeld/the Hirschfeld estate, you'd see that her reputation for veracity . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

That article seems to be behind a paywall - all I can see is a single paragraph:

A troupe of hopefuls has been rehearsing scenes from "Peter Pan" in basements in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. The most hopeful of all the members of the group, the Fine Arts Theatre Workshop, is its director, Miss Margo Eden.

Are there more details? Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Pretty sure that File:Margo Feiden.jpg is a copyvio and have tagged it as such. As for possible COI issues, if there's a connection between Factor-ies and Margo Feiden (apparently there is per Factor-ies user page), then add {{COI edit notice}} and {{Connected contributor}} to the article's talk page and advise them not to directly edit the article except per WP:COIADVICE. If they have any problems with doing this, then bring it up for discussion at WP:COIN. If there's a strong suspicion that Factor-ies is Feiden herself (apparently there are concerns about this per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries), then advise "her" about WP:BLPCOMPLAIN. If "she" still is not willing to abide by relevant policies and guidelines, then maybe this should be discussed as ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Miss Feiden is very open about the fact that she & Factor-ies are one and the same. The account is signing its posts here on WP (including on my user talk) as "Margo Feiden". Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

If that’s the case, then a {{Connected contributor}} template should be added to the BLP article’s talk page as well as any others directly related to her. A {{uw-coi}} template could be added to her user talk page as well, but a more personal note might work better if you’ve been previously engaging her on various talk pages. Basically, she should be following WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and avoid directly editing the article. If she’s unwilling to do that, then she’s going to eventually end up at WP:ANI for WP:NOTHERE.

In addition, if she’s been always signing as Feiden, then she should be made aware of WP:REALNAME. If she emails WP:Contact OTRS and has OTRS verify her identity per {{OTRS verified}}, others will know for sure (or at least as best as possible) that she’s not just someone claiming to be Feiden; otherwise, she may be risking being WP:SOFTBLOCKED for impersonation. WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages and all living persons; so, claiming to be a specific identifiable person in your posts when you really aren’t (particularly someone with a Wikipedia article written about them) seems just as bad as actually using the other person’s real name as your username. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of cast photos

I see you have removed images of TV show cast from Empty Nest and EastEnders. Is WP:NFCC#8 sufficient enough? If so, how would readers expect open content to help people understand the TV series? Can readers understand info about cast and characters? -- George Ho (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the Empty Nest photos, they were used simply to illustrate a list of cast members, devoid of any substantive commentary. The same function could be served (perhaps better served) by a gallery of free head shots. For Eastenders, we were dealing with a gallery of nonfree group shots, without specific sourced commentary for each image. Worse, the casts were so large that the small images were not very communicative. Even the single image that remains is probably more decorative than communicative. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Re-reading WP:NFCC, how do you think removing the cast photos would not impact readers' understanding about the show? I.e. readers curious about the appearances of the cast while learning about TV shows, like Empty Nest. Can Wikipedia content adequately teach readers about TV shows without the cast photos? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:NFC#CS says that "contextual significance" is subjective and varies, even with two common circumstances. George Ho (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I spotchecked articles on about a dozen similar TV shows of the same vintage, and about 80% did not use cast photos at all. Consensus practice appears to run against your position, which you don't provide any positive evidence in favor of. Major films like Chicago, Midnight Cowboy, No Country for Old Men, and West Side Story similarly stand without nonfree cast photos. If you're going to challenger an established pattern and practice like this, you badly need to provide policy-grounded arguments that would directly support your position, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: Euro Shopper feautured line of products.jpg

Hello, I see from the state of your talk page that you are a seasoned and controversial editor here. I don't have a big issue with your edit removing the image, but I'm interested in the explanation about the fair use rationale being 'invalid'. Surely it serves a purpose for showing the distinctive visual branding and range of products they typically carry? Cheers daylon124 (talk)

The use rationale states that the image is being used to support textual discussion of the "line of products". There is no such text in the article. Also, the promotional nonfree image could be replaced with a free(r), user-created image showing examples of the product line. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg

Regarding this, I do not see that it applies in this case. The kiss is the main reason this couple is WP:Notable. It's not about "oh, readers can imagine them kissing." It's about the fact that this particular moment is groundbreaking/historical and the image is displaying that particular moment. While they have kissed other times on the series, it is this kiss that received all of the media attention. We are allowed to include a non-free image when the imagery itself is the discussion or when the imagery validly aids the topic of discussion. And, no, I do not believe that what you did in this case -- making the image the lead image -- is the solution. This is per what I stated with this edit. Furthermore, whether or not to keep this image was discussed before; see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg. The consensus was to keep the image. I suggest you put it up for another WP:Files for discussion if you want it deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Change UK

I did not make a nonconstructive removal of sourced claim to the above article. I made a minor grammar edit (removing an unnecessary comma). Regards Denisarona (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Denisarona: Seems like your edit was caught up in the revert of another edit; notice how in Hullaballoo's edit summary it says "Reverted 2 pending edits by 63.144.52.250 and". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually it says: Reverted 2 pending edits by 63.144.52.250 and Denisarona to revision 897786156 by JDuggan101: nonconstructive removal of sourced claim. Denisarona (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Page blanking

Hi, I have reverted your edits on Gia Darling, Francesca Le, Cash Markman, Tim Von Swine, Tiffany Clark and Deidre Holland, Please use Afd to gain a consensus, not just arbitrarily delete based on your personal viewpoint. --John B123 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --John B123 (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Flickr image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
I recently uploaded few pics from Flickr to Commons. Majority of images are those of copyrights: Attribution-ShareAlike. Would you plz clarify on a doubt of mine, that if the author (in Flickr) ever if changes the copyright of those images to something: Not OK to Commons like Attribution-NoDerivs, will the bot (like FlickreviewR 2) immediatley considers it as Not OK and so eligible for deletion? --Gpkp (u • t • c) 09:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really familiar with the details of the relevant bot's operation, but I believe it only checks the status of an image once. Releasing an image under a free license is generally irrevocable; rights validly given to the public can't be taken back later. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your edit summary citing the WP NFC guideline. I won't be making that mistake again. Cheers! -- Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please be more careful...

you wrote	notes
It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot;	Wrong. He saw a video made by someone playing the game; he took a screenshot; and he tweeted a request for the actual game.
if he had created the screenshot; he presumably had the game mod it was created from, and wouldn't have needed to request a copy of it.	About 3/4 of the way down the CBC article is a copy of his tweet. The comment above the image says "Where can I get the Brussels airport MOD on call of duty?:" Where did he snap the screenshot? I am sorry you didn't bother to read my comment, where I linked to a YouTube video made by someone playing that version of the game. That video is 294 seconds long. The screenshot used to illustrate no russian was snapped at 24 seconds, when the shooters have fired just a few rounds. The screenshot Mohammed snapped was at about 26 seconds, after the five shooters have been blasting the crowd for just two second - still long enough to have fired hundreds of rounds into the several dozen people you can see in a pile of dead and wounded.
There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent.	might be time for some new spectacles.
(it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale)	The video portion of this global news article (at about 26 seconds) explicitly refers to the image he snapped as a "massacre": "According to RCMP testimony, this image, a massacre, from a graphic video game, is what Mohammed posted online the same day he was arrested." An RS referred to the image showing a "massacre". I suggest anyone who gave this issue fair consideration would agree we can refer to this as a violent image from a violent video game.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Much like your complaint about edit notes as a form of discussion, your taking a discussion about an article and moving it to the user talk page of one single participant also makes it difficult to determine how events unfolded for the rest of us... -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ferret, I've crossed paths with Hullaballoo multiple times, over multiple years. My conclusions are:

1. Hullaballoo is genuinely well-intentioned, is genuinely convinced that his or her edits will improve the wikipedia;
2. I am convinced Hullaballoo's comments that suggest he or she feels like a victim are sincere, and that they do feel like a victim, more of a victim than the people, like me, to whom they have a history of being abrasive.
3. I believe Hullaballoo is genuinely unaware of how abrasive they can be.
4. In my opinion Hullaballoo manifests a terrible failing, one which is unfortunately much more common among wikipedia contributors than it should be. Hullaballoo seems to have a terrible problem considering the possibility that people who disagree with them may be making valid points.

   I don't want to win every disagreement I have on the wikipedia. I always do my best to consider the other guy's point of view. And, if after I have done so, I conclude I was wrong, I say so. This is what is best for the project.

• Yes, I could have left the comment above at Talk:Kevin_Omar_Mohammed. It was a judgement call. Knowing how prickly Hullaballoo has shown themselves to be I thought these comments would be more likely to be effective if left at the slightly more private venue of User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
• What makes me think Hullaballoo can't acknowledge mistakes? Well, his or her behavior at Florin Fodor, for one. I uploaded File:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg in 2008. Hullaballoo excised that image in 2017, with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox"'.

  Is there some policy reason why nonfree images shouldn't be in infoboxex? I couldn't find one, nevertheless, I moved it out of the infobox, when I restored it.

  A year later Hullaballoo excised the image, again. This time their edit summary was "nonfree lede image in BLP".

  I applaud administrator Ronhjones closing comment at File talk:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg. It was a near-run thing. My regular wikistalker confused one administrator, who couldn't distinguish between their bogus vandal sockpuppet edits and genuine substantive positive edits.

• Hullaballoo relies on gut instincts and snap judgements. I genuinely think they should wise up and acknowledge they too are subject to normal human fallibility. In particular they failed in their excisions at Florin Fodor. They failed to use good judgment in failing to recognize an historic and non-reproducable image. They failed by offering confusing non-policy excision justifications in their edit summary. And, in my opinion, they failed by not publicly offering recognition that they got this one wrong, after the closure. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in an ANI thread

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Natlalya Murashkevich

Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Wikipedia uses a photo from the same source, and it's fair-free use rationale is justified but this is not? How is the fact there is no non-free substitute not a justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Sp00n exe. Each Wikipedia project has its own policies and guidelines determined by its respective community; there might be some similarities and overlap, but there also might be some big differences. I'm not sure what Russian Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use it, but English Wikipedia's is quite restrictive, even more restrictive than US copyright law in some ways. That's the policy which matters when it comes to non-free files being used on English Wikipedia. Generally, as explained in WP:FREER, non-free images of still living persons are not going to be allowed per non-free content use criterion #1; there might be some exceptions to this as explained in item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but these are exceptions not the rule. A free equivalent of a non-free file does not have to currently exist, there only has to be a reasonable expectation that it can be found or created. It doesn't have to be created or found by you, it can be anyone, and it doesn't have to be created or found by any particular date. Moreover, a free equivalent doesn't even have to be a free version of the exact same file, it can be a different file and only has to be sufficient enough to provide the same basic encyclopedic information and serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose.

The file you were trying to use (File:Natalya Murashkevich.jpg) was removed by Hullaballo Wolfowitz, but it was actually deleted by an administrator named Explicit per WP:F7; it's important to note that the deletion was per WP:F7, not WP:F5. Explicit is quite experienced in dealing with non-free files and wouldn't have deleted the file for F7 reasons if he disagreed with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment. If you feel that there are special considerations which should've been taken into account, the best thing to do would be to discuss them with Explicit on his user talk page; perhaps, your arguments will be persuasive enough to get Explicit to restore the file for further discussion. There's really not anything more that Hullaballo Wolfowitz can do here since he cannot restore a deleted file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that your post at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#This just in... spells McConnell's name Motch. My keyboard is a bit slippery and I make mistakes like that all the time. OTOH if you want it spelled that way that is fine - thought I'd let you know just in case. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Dresel image

Dear HW, The image File:Bernie Dresel Playing Drums.jpg license has been updated to what I hope is the most correct/appropriate. This to be used on the Bernie Dresel page. Please check this to make sure it is right. Of all things that I've uploaded or created on Wikipedia (which is many), knowing what is the correct attribution and licensing for images/picture is the most difficult. In this case, Dresel was contacted after the draft was written and forwarded/authorized his own bio pic (which he owns). At that point there seems to be several licenses listed that apply to that situation. Evidently I am still quite unclear as to which among the long licensing list is the most applicable for current, copyrighted material used from the creator (who gave permission). Please advise if possible.

Thanks for your help! Shelyric (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Only the copyright holder may license an image. Since you are not the copyright holder, you need to either 1) show that the image was published elsewhere, under the authority of the copyright holder, with an appropriate free license; or 2) provide proof of the licensing to WP:OTRS. Wikipedia-limited permission is not sufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Objection

I object to your characterization of my good faith nomination of Sarah Hoyt, and I find your accusation of bad faith un-civil. I spent several hours trying to research the subject after learning of the author and article's existence but after finding reason to doubt notability and an almost complete lack of compliant sourcing on the page I followed the procedures listed on wikipedia. I would appreciate an apology. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

And I would appreciate a hot night of passion with the young Diana Rigg. But it ain't gonna happen.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hoyt

As you can see from my edit summary reverting you again, you're risking a block if you persist. Nonetheless, you have two choices. One, comment at the AfD that it should be snow closed and why. Two, take it to ANI and get an administrator to agree with you and close it that way. But you can't on your own close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

What I see from your edit summary is that you're just another fucking abusive admin who refuses to follow or to cite governing policy and insisting that his little tin admin badge allows him to the rest of us animals who are less equal than others. Well, your behaviour here demonstrates why you're not worthy of respect. You don't even pretend to argue with my carefully stated, policy-based justification for my actions. I've been told, and accepted, that disputable, good faith NAC closures should be taken to DRV or, in worst cases, to AN/I, not unilaterally reversed. You don't dispute that this was a good faith closure with a policy basis. Why the fuck do you think that you don't have to follow generally applicable policies? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Can I say what I see? At first glance your NAC seems to have some merit, though your response to Bbb was of course rude and unnecessary. But then again, if you look closely, it all falls apart. The first PROD was applied by someone with one single edit, sure--so they're automatically an SPA, but there is no proof of socking, none whatsoever. The AfD's intentions are hard to figure out, and your easy answers lack proof--plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated. You didn't know that, but you're jumping to conclusions. Now, if your suppositions had been either proven correct or were reasonable and supported by evidence, you would have been correct in closing it, but neither is the case yet. To make a long story short, you are the one not following applicable policy, given WP:NACPIT item 1, which also points at the "understanding that the closure may be reversed". Which is what happened. And Bbb's is correct to point out that a comment at the AfD and maybe a ANI would have been the right thing to do. Instead, you're insulting him, treating him, yes, like dirt. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)