User talk:HalJor

Spam?

You recently edited the page on male escort, removing a valid link to a popular sex-worker's blog. If you had taken time to look further into the page, you will also see that additional sexworker blog links are listed. This is NOT a spam issue. I'm reposting. User talk:24.243.5.91

Blogs are not valid external links -- see WP:EL, section 4, point 11. Thanks for pointing out the others, I'll delete those as well. HalJor 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs CAN be valid external links, as there is no definitive rule against them when the blog pertains directly to the involved page subject. I would say that this blog fits that criteria. You can continue to abuse your power to edit the page, but know that I will repost. User talk:24.243.5.91

While the blog in question is written by an alleged call boy, much of the content is not relevant. Among the articles I see are: my Ipod, a trip to Thailand, an absentee landlord, chocolate, and the Middle East. It could easily be seen as self-promotion, which would violate WP:COI and WP:NOT HalJor 22:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You say tomato... Just because you may not find a callboy's musings acceptable for this page doesn't mean it should be nixed in-whole. You have yet to definitively prove that this is a totally disallowed activity on Wiki. It's a pair of blogs written by flesh-and-blood male escorts. This is where the buck stops. User talk:24.243.5.91

Ooops

Fat acceptance - kinda like it says - thanks for picking that up - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

removal of link

The link that you have removed twice from the 'adhesive tape' page is a legitimate link that points to TapeInfo.com. This site, although a commercial site, has an adhesive tape search engine that allows users to find the tape they are looking for from over 10,000 tapes from the world's best tape manufacturers.

This search engine was developed by industry professionals and is endorsed by all of them. Most industrial manufacturers use tape, and getting the 10,000 datasheets, cross-references and specifications that this site offers is of great use to the engineers, operations managers and purchasing managers in these industries.

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to remove 'advertising' from Wiki, but I have included this link in good faith. As a compromise, I will not link to the TapeInfo Homepage, but will instead link to its Find-A-Tape main page. This is the page that describes all the searching methods for finding tapes and datasheets.

Please communicate with me directly if this is not going to work for you. A resolution is best made in this manner, in my opinion. Thank you.

Referring to Wikipedia:External_links, specifically 1.3.4: "Links to be avoided: Links that are added to promote a site, *that primarily exist to sell products or services*, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." HalJor 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of link continued

If you notice, both tape glossaries listed on the adhesive tape page link to companies selling products and services. This page that I linked to is not 'advertisey' and as a matter of fact contains no advertisements. I don't know why you chose this category to target, but I have been in the tape industry for a long time and this is the best site I've seen for researching tapes and finding datasheets. Your removal of this link is frankly insulting. It is of no consequence to anyone that this site is owned by a for-profit company. The information presented is unbiased, useful and simply the best on the Web. Please do not revert this link. Thank you.

I stand by my earlier statement, regarding Wikipedia's policy (which I notice you did not dispute, although you did point out other apparent violations). On the other hand, I have better things to do than argue with you. HalJor 20:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For correcting my typo on the erotic spanking page. I have no idea what the "Folsom Steet Fair" is, and yet that's what I wrote. Edward Wakelin 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

fisting references

Hi. You've put a bunch of references to "Herrman 1991" at fisting, but that's not enough to find what you are trying to cite. Can you make it a full citation that includes the name of the journal or book, date, publisher, etc.? Thanks. --Strait 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see what you did. I'm going to see if there's a more elegant way of handling it. --Strait 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, I saw your comment on Power Top and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we would be delighted to have you! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT 1.7.3

While I agree with your removing of radio station lineups, it's hard for me to defend your position when you cite a rule... that is seemingly not there? Can you tell me what policy you are trying to cite? Thanks. JPG-GR 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain that, at the time I cited the first deletion, 1.7.3 was the correct numbering. It is now at 2.6.3: "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc...." Further deletions, in the event that I make them, will cite the correct number (or I may use the {{schedule}} template). Thank you for pointing out my error. HalJor 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I needed some more info to defend my position at WYCD. JPG-GR 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one applaud your efforts on the radio articles. I've been removing station schedules and whatnot from these articles whenever I run across them. These things are clutter, completely irrelevant, and can easily be found on the stations' websites. I notice these things are often added by people working at the stations themselves. The most ridiculous one I saw was for WXSS, which had a complete listing of text messaging numbers for all the jocks at the station. Ugh! I got rid of that immediately. Has no business on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, and I tip a glass to thee. --Fightingirish 00:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The few histories that I looked at indicated the schedules had been there for some time, so I never bothered to look for who/when (and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are out-of-date). I'm glad to clean up at least a little bit and have a reasonable policy to back me up. One of these days, I hope to find a policy on notability and verifiability that I can use to clean up Trivia sections that insist on including things like "In one episode of The Simpsons..." and "This was one of the answers on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?". HalJor 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your hard work with cleaning up vandalism, and beating me to revert vandalism on 111, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! ~ Wikihermit 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit of KSLZ Wiki

May I ask why you edited so much from the KSLZ entry? Please explain to me how the version that you edited is any different from any other radio station entry. I included all of the current staff (commonly done in many radio station entries) and most of the former staff (done in several entries that I've seen). KSLZ is one of the more influential Top 40 radio stations in this country and deserves to have as much information as possible listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.97.45.186 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

The following comment was another editor's response, copied from User talk:67.97.45.186:

...The original editor was correct: Wikipedia is not a directory, or an arbitrary collection of information. I did read your reasoning on the other editor's page, and I'm afraid that if other articles on radio stations are like this, then they're still wrong. Other crap exists (yes, that's the title of the policy, I'm afraid) is not a valid argument to contest deletion.

I'll add that the station's alleged influence is not noted in the article, and "as much information as possible" is welcome, provided it complies with WP policies. If "other crap exists", it's mainly because no one has cleaned up the other articles yet. I can only edit one (or at most a small batch) at a time. HalJor 23:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing DJs

The DJ list is important to what the XM channels are. They are not there for the sake of being there, they are part of the channel's identity. Flap Jackson 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR: "Wikipedia articles are not...Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. I don't think any of the articles I touched gave any indication that DJs are notable or significant, and the same "part of the channel's identity" could be made about any station. I consider such DJ information to be unencyclopedic unless they are notable or some appropriate comment is made in the article. HalJor 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, they may be unimportant. However, from the point of view of the listener, they are important and are not see as the same a DJs seen on a terrestrial station. In addition, it is know to many listeners and subscribers that the XM radio website is notorious in keeping track of a schedule thus these pages keep a more accurate timetable. Thus, by common sense and information existing and potential people what is going on. TravKoolBreeze 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, in keeping with WP policies, mention of the DJ should be included but the schedule (unless significant in itself) should not be included. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a TV Guide. External links to the programming schedule would be welcome, but the listings do not belong here -- it's not maintainable, likely nor notable. HalJor 05:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Which I just mention, is significant for the fact that XM website itself can not maintain the listing. It is notable to those who listen and those are potential subscribers plus, any pending merger with Sirius. I understand there is a limit to how much should be listed; however, an encyclopedia is to give helpful information and until XM keeps an updated schedule, a minor listing on Wikepida will not destroy the website or hinder its help to users. TravKoolBreeze 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(sorry to but in, but...) Just because XM can't maintain their own website doesn't mean it's WP's responsibility to do it for them. JPG-GR 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Help desk question

You should really tell them on their talk page that you think their adverts are unacceptable.

WEXP (La Salle University) Edit

You deleted the Executive Board listing under WP:NOT-DIR, but it wasn't listing a directory so much as it was listing our governing board. Our governing board is not "loosely associated" but rather "significantly contributed to the list topic" because they are the governing board. They are not "genealogical entries or phonebook entries," nor are a list of their names parts of "directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or resources for conducting business." Note the entry here: Y-Rock_On_XPN for a list of DJs and staff. I see no difference between here or there. I've reverted the entry. If you still think having it is justified, I'd be happy to take the matter to an admin. No hard feelings and certainly no mean motives, just questioning a call is all. Pacdude 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think having the Board listing is justified. Just because phone numbers aren't included doesn't mean that it fails the spirit of the "directory" policy. Furthermore, see WP:OtherCrapExists. HalJor 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

As you were the first I saw to cite WP:NOT#DIR to remove promotional schedule listings from radio articles, I was wondering if you'd like to comment here regarding my interpretation of WP:NOT#STATS to remove excessive ratings histories for radio stations. Thanks for your time! JPG-GR 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It may not be what you wanted to hear, but I threw in my 2¢. HalJor 03:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism

See my reply here: [1] --TotesBoats 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your Talk page. HalJor 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BDSM

I see from your last couple of edits that it appears you don't approve of psychological analysis of BDSM, am I right? If so, you are off-base for Wikipedia - this is an encyclopedia, not a pro-BDSM blog. Just in case that's your view. LiberalViews 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What I disapprove of is the use of Wikipedia to make misleading statements, such as that "the general view of psychologists is that sexual masochism falls under...psychiatric sexual disorders", when the article you cite says nothing of the kind. Rather, the article explains that there is "no universally accepted theory explaining the root of sexual masochism" and, in a perhaps vain attempt to give some response to those concerned about the topic, continues with "some theories attempt to explain the presence of sexual paraphilias in general." There is no connection explicitly stated -- only what you inferred. Yes, this is an encyclopedia -- it's not an anti-BDSM blog, either. Just in case that's your view. HalJor 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, hope the revision I did meets the problem you've defined. LiberalViews 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BoundAndGagged106.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BoundAndGagged106.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. HalJor 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BDSM

• Hi HalJor, please have a look at Talk:BDSM#abbreviation, initialism or acronym?. I'm no native speaker so you guys should discuss it. ;-) Kind Regards.--Nemissimo (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hello HalJor, the article is constantly developing further. Since my amount of English language literature is limited and further sources are asked for during the copy editing, it would be great if you could have a look if you can provide any additional reference. Any bit helps! ;-) Regards.--Nemissimo 12:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Move from "Male Prostitution" to "Gigolo"

As I've noted at Talk:Gigolo, I don't support the move you did this morning. I understand your reasoning that the original title was "sexist", but you chose a specifically heterosexual term (I listed five citations). I believe the considerable male-male interaction warrants a more neutral term, if any such move is necessary (and I'm not convinced that it is). HalJor (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps this should be an article on the slang term, street hustler, since that is the gist of the article? - Davodd (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's not the gist of the article. There's an entire section on Venues: streets, bars, print, online, bathhouses, and brothels. And to make things more complex, each venue seems to have its own term for the prostitute. If there's no generic alternative, the original title "male prostitution" is most appropriate. HalJor (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Prostitution of males hits multiple WP goals - doesn't begin with an adjective, is generic enough to robust/inclusive needs, and it's non-culturally sexist to boot. (Also fits within the naming scheme of other prostitution articles - i.e. Prostitution of children.) I don't think there should be problems with "male prostitution" used in body text, though. - Davodd (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Prostitution_of_males#Propose_move_to_Male_prostitution

Hi could you do a favor and make clear with "Support", "Oppose" or something else on this proposal so we might gauge consensus more readily? Banjeboi 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD

The "bio" speedy tag that you placed on a newly created page, Royal docks secondary school, states that schools do not fit the criteria for that particular tag. While I agree completely on the article being deleted, it should be for the right reason. Consider the "nonsense" tag for a situation like this. Thanks! Mazeau (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I considered it closer to "group" (subset of "bio"), but that does make sense here. So noted. HalJor (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Jamal15

It is only needed to advise an editor once that "their" article has been templated. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If only Twinkle did that automatically. Should I edit his talk page every time I have to re-csd? HalJor (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If they remove the notice, revert their edit and then place the appropriate warning on their talkpage. In this instance, it is some kid trying to get their name on WP... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Some tools just aren't as helpful as I'd like. More work for me, thanks a lot, Mr. Vandal. (That's Jamal, not you.) HalJor (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard feynman's last doctoral student

You seem to have removed R P Feynman's last PhD student, Thomas Curtright, a Professor of theoretical physics, more or less in good standing, indeed, eminent, as of this month. He is attested in Wikipedia, in Academic genealogy of theoretical physicists , in Stanford-spires Hepnames: [ http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hepnames/www?rawcmd=find+name+curtright ] and in his publically available PhD thesis [2]. I happened to have been Feynman's teaching assistant, and known the man--he certainly appears to be genuine. What could be the point of your deletion?

Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, your addition does not appear to be notable. At least, there is no Wikipedia article for him, and the addition was not cited. "Added last PhD student" merely looks like someone adding himself to the list. HalJor (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would merely deceive by appearance, but I did my part in this. I need not play games to also Look clean and not that person's sock puppet, if that is the disturbing implication of your remark, as parsed in good faith. I very much fear it is now up to you to both write an article for him and to check facts, using the citations in this talk snippet. It is my very strong impression he is the only one of Feynman's PhD students who is pursuing physics theory research at present, of the type that Feynman pursued. This terminates my involvement on this article and leaves you with a serious burden, I fear. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• comment. I think for doctoral students the practice is we only include those with a WP article, but I am subject to correction here. A notable person normally has many students, some of whom turn out much less notable than he. The documentation for Curtwright is reliable enough, though, if we do usually add them all. And if he is notable, an article can be written. DGG (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Template:Uw-patrolled NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is new to me. However, I'm not patrolling Special:Newpages -- I'm hitting Special:RecentChanges, so the "patrolled" link is not visible to me. Thanks for the info, though. HalJor (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. We really have to get that part fixed. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Legion Cat

Thank you for your recent efforts to improve the pages of some of the members of the Legion of Super-Heroes. However, I have removed your addition of the Legion category from the pages for Tellus, Quislet and Gates. Per prior consensus at WP:COMICS, individual members of Super-hero teams are listified, not categorized. Please see the relevant section of the Wikiproject: Comics Editorial Guidelines for clarification. Of course, consensus can change, so if you disagree with this action, I suggest you bring the matter up at the Wikiproject: Comics talk page so the entire community can weigh in. Thanks, and have a good day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about that, I kind of figured it out after I made those three edits. I was surprised that the category did not include the actual members -- the category description is merely "Articles relating to the Legion of Super-Heroes." and says nothing about excluding the characters. HalJor (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added a link in the cat description to the relevant section of the Wikiproject: Comics Editorial Guidelines, which explains the guidelines in much greater detail, including the reasons behind the prior consensus. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Smartstim

Smartstim is a community page, it is not commercial or spam.

I suggest you read it first.

Trigger happy mods give wiki a bad name

BTW most of the content on this wiki page comes from Smartstim(!) 88.110.149.253 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:ELNO, particularly points 6 and 10 as I noted? I suggest you read those before you post the link again. I'll make it easy for you:

6) "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." I did visit the site but I couldn't read anything without registering. And the site is not *the* subject of the article -- the site is *about* the subject of the article.

10) "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." The site is a discussion forum.

Even if most of the content on this wiki page did come from SmartStim, only registered users would be able to verify that and it is still not a reliable source. HalJor (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The site is categorised under WP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Official_links and therefore should not be removed. WP:ELNO is not applicable and is being used by this mod inappropriately. 95.149.232.170 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)