User talk:Granny Bebeb

Hello - you don't know me, but I wanted to bring to your attention that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is accusing you of being me (or visa versa). As you will see in the edit history on the Clint Catalyst article, I used to work on the listing. Anyway, I was accused of having a COI, so I don't do major edits there anymore & I just wanted to thank you for fighting the good fight. I hope that you have better luck than I ever did. Tallulah13 (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh. Thanks for letting me know...the guy's gaming the system pretty badly, it seems clear to me who has the COI (and likely alternate accounts), especially considering he has others listed on his user page. I've been editing it for a while under an IP, but just recently signed up for this account. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Granny Bebeb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a few points at Talk:Clint Catalyst for you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain exactly what "contributing authorship" means at Talk:Clint_Catalyst#Contributing_authorship? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Chzz ► 14:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clint_Catalyst COI concerns

I have posted a note at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Clint_Catalyst about the COI concerns with Clint Catalyst. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors dealing with article Jessicka/Hullballoo's aggressive edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xtian1313#To_all_editors_dealing_with_article_Jessicka.2FHullballoo.27s_aggressive_edits Xtian1313 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors/ Hullaballoo situation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swancookie#To_all_editors.2F_Hullaballoo_situation

Swancookie (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Might Help!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Benjiboi#Hullaballo_saga_continues.2F_Any_word_whether_he_is_a_blocked_editor.3F

"If Hullabaloo is WP:Wikihounding you - following you from article to article - that is a serious civility issue and a serious charge. My suggestion is to start editing other articles and see if they do follow you around. Once something is posted on my talkpage, even if the issue is resolved, it's my "right" to keep it there and revert someone who deletes it - within reason of course but Hullaboo in effect does control their talkpage. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)"

If Hullballoo is Wikihounding you, report him!

Swancookie (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swancookie#RFC Swancookie (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phony 3RR accusations

Here [1] you falsely accused me of violating 3RR on Clint Catalyst. Since I obviously did not, and you did not file or attempt to file a 3RR complaint, it is impossible to see any informed good faith reason for your claim. You should delete it and apologize. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew how to file 3RR, I would've. You clearly DID violate 3RR by removing all contributions I made that day. Funny you should talk when you've intentionally made false claims about me (as well as other editors) on a routine basis...when are you going to delete those and apologize? Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately making false accusations. It is very clear from the 3RR policy page that my edits did not violate the policy. You are, once again, making up your own rules for Wikipedia, like the "administrator-approved" nonsense that you have been repeatedly told by actual administrators has no basis in Wikipedia policy, and trying to use your phony rules to smear legitimate editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not a personal attack on me? From my understanding of the 3RR page, your actions did appear to be overboard. I have never "made up rules for Wikipedia", though I apologize if I have misinterpreted any. Who are these administrators who have allegedly "repeatedly" said this? I have not seen one instance. Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Catalyst

If you don't mind, I've chosen to remove myself from that article and all the resulting drama. However, I would suggest a user RFC is further discussion isn't productive, as it seems like certain users have become very protectionist of the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Coralmizu. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel that any of the statements I have made were personal attacks - note that I even encouraged her to look at your statement herself at its source, and asked for her opinion of the matter rather than making assumptions. On the contrary, I do feel that your statements towards both myself and other editors have ventured into the territory of "personal attack" on multiple occasions. I apologize if I have unknowingly crossed any lines, but please be mindful of your own advice. Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help please

{{helpme}}I was wondering if I could please get some assistance...I've been attempting to improve the encyclopedic and informational value of the Clint Catalyst article for some time. For a while, I wasn't really sure how to go about things properly, but want to make sure I get it right this time.

The subject of the article is a screenwriter (in addition to many other occupations), and there are at least four seemingly solid sources which state this fact - in addition to his membership in the WGA, which states online that Catalyst is hired as a "signatory writer". Another editor disputes (removes) this fact and states that WGA membership is not limited to screenwriters, yet I can find nothing to back this claim up. I am not trying to start drama or an edit war, or insult/persecute any editors involved, but I am not sure why an assumption should be taken over five forms of seemingly RS evidence to the contrary.

I hate to admit it, but I feel I have grown as an editor through this trying experience - I hope to be able to further improve the quality of my edits. Thank you in advance to anyone who responds. Granny Bebeb (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in dispute over content with another editor, we have a number of dispute resolution tools you can use. In this case, you can use the reliable sources noticeboard to invite others to review whether the sources you have are indeed to be considered reliable or you can request a third opinion by a neutral editor on the talk page. As far as I can see, you are correct (although I would not use the peta2 blog source if you have got magazines as sources), so let's see whether it is still disputed. In future, I would advise you to simply talk to the editor in question first though. Regards So Why 09:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Clint Catalyst, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Given the number of times you've inserted exaggerated promotional claims into this article, whose subject is a friend of yours, only to be rejected again and again by consensus, it's no longer possible to find a shred of good faith in your repeated reversions. The fact that your buddy occasionally gets careless sources to repeat his self-puffery doesn't mean Wikipedia has to include his self-advertising, and your hunting down sources that have fallen for his self-promotion isn't what most of us would call good faith editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPA - Your repeated violations

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User talk:SoWhy, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. After God knows how many rounds of dispute resolution at AN/I and similar boards, extensive discussion at the relevant articles, your phony sockpuppet and 3RR accusations, and your ongoing spreading of false personal attacks against me and other editors who have done no more than implement the Wikimedia Foundation's policy against turning Wikipedia articles into advertisements for their subjects, you continue to devote the majority of your editing time here to attacking editors who disagree with you, and me in particular. You're also a sockpuppet, Alcy, and you lied about your editing history on this talk page. If you continue this campaign of personalized attacks any further I'll make the formal block/ban request. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Luci'fer Luscious Violenoue for deletion

The article Luci'fer Luscious Violenoue is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luci'fer Luscious Violenoue until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —J04n(talk page) 07:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fiction (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fiction (band) 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/Fiction (band) 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 template from the top of the article. Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]