User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Francisco Group

Hello. I have declined your speedy deletion request at Francisco Group. The problem is that WP:CSD#G10 covers unreferenced articles only. Our speedy deletion criteria also say "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum."

I suggest you create an AfD for this article and present your evidence that it is a hoax. Thank you. Chillum 17:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand International

It should be a good idea when you check the first version of this cut and paste thingy, created after a refused undeletion request: [1] The Banner talk 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what the page looked like eight months ago. When you tagged it for deletion this morning, it wasn't substantially identical to the deleted version, and therefore wasn't subject to speedy deletion as a repost of a deleted article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case Opened: Banning Policy

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/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Cole

Thank you for your recent prod removal on Jade Cole (model). Might you have any way to delete the redirect that ends up on the AMTM Cycle 6 article when people type in ‘Jade Cole’? I feel at this point it should go to her article, and then the (model) on her name can be dropped. There’s only one person on Wikipedia with that name. Thank you so much if that’s something you know how to do; I don’t. --Kbabej (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking, Not Spamming

I'm trying to add links with more information about some films and you keep deleting them. Please stop. Cashiers (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Cashiers[reply]

No. Your only edits in about two years are rapid-fire addition of links to the same non-notable podcast. I'm not the only editor who's removed one of your links. It's evident that your purpose is promotion of the podcast. If you continue, the links will again be removed and your editing privileges are likely to be suspended. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was googling and found that you have quite a reputation of being a bit prickly. This seems to be in keeping with your personality and tactics. I won't ask you to stop being a jerk because I think that's just your nature. Cashiers (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Cashiers[reply]

Rebecca Bardoux

Hello Hullabalo can you please explain where you are getting you information about Rebecca Bardoux in regards to "unsupported by cited source; one performance does not demonstrate an occupation." Thank you Mosmos69

Please don't edit war

Please do not edit war as you did here. Please follow WP:BRD. Also, a discussion that is two days old can hardly be called "cold".- Mr X 17:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing speedy

Ok before you start yelling at me, I do think you're right, I think I may have been confused. Does the speedy refer to socks? Since they can't edit after being banned/blocked, then they'd have to create another user to do the editing and then in comes the speedy request? Yes? Because in that case then I've been right in the past but since Fairyspit was the sockpuppet he wasn't blocked until later and doesn't qualify. Yes?LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically it. G5 doesn't apply to articles created before the block/ban is imposed. I posted a longer explanation on your talk page before I saw your post here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Prydain

Hi. What is your criterion for restoring articles on Prydain fictional elements--that is, I understand, restoring articles rather than redirects as the targets of navbox {{The Chronicles of Prydain}}. Has there been any related discussion?

I remarked two weeks ago Talk:Gurgi#Hasty merge, thought I might do more about it but didn't, and updated today mentioning you. Thanks. --P64 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Prydain-related material, it's pretty much as I come across it. Alexander may be the most-written-about American fantasy author of the "modern" period who predates the Tolkien boom, and the immense amount of scholarly writing that's indexed online demonstrates that the content suppression described as redirects and merges was grossly inappropriate. A fair amount of the commentary (purely "scholarly" and otherwise) addresses the relationships between Alexander's work and Celtic mythology, particularly the mabinogi, with discussion of individual characters, so I'm confident that the elimination of the character articles was clearly wrong. (In practice, it also violated the ban on "fait accompli" editing in the relevant Arbcomm case, but I'm restoring articles in careful stages to avoid similar complaints.) The editor responsible also targeted article related to Shakespeare, Orwell, Heinlein, Carroll, LeGuin and George R.R. Martin, so it's pretty clear this is POINTy disruption. Pruning gamecruft is one thing, but going out of his way to gut coverage of writers with massive critical coverage is quite another. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Only one now remains a redirect (Prydain character redirects to lists). When you "restore" (that is your Gwystyl edit summary), do you literally mark in the Revision history (example) a span of latest edits back to the version to be restored, and select "undo"?

Oops, I'm two minutes past my witching hour. Good night. --P64 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Curtis Books

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 Curtis Books 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 an organization or company, 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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confused

Did you mean to accept these five edits from IP 119.154.13.20? The edits reintroduced the same unsourced BLP-violating material I added the protection to prevent, including flip-flopping DOB and unsupported religious affiliation. I'm assuming it was a misclick, as that's out of character of you. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 22:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mean to? Yes/ Was it the right call? Apparently not. I'm so used to dealing with horrid BLP violations in South Asian celebrity BLPs that I let a less obvious one go right by me. Sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani actor articles are being bombarded with a wave of promotional sock/meat edits (which I'm fairly convinced come from a paid editing ring). Given the endless rapid-cycling IP ranges and ISPs available in the region blocking is toothless, so semi-protection is the only way to limit the disruption. The BLP issues aren't as egregious as some cases, but the marketing group is unrelenting in their attempts to insert the contested DOBs, religion and puffery in the articles. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tera Patrick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMT. 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) 09:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Caitlin pascoe

A tag has been placed on Caitlin pascoe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Redirect to a page that doesn't exist or has been deleted

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poudar

We do. If you are an admin then check the history of that and of articles created by, for example, Buddhakahika (talk · contribs) and their socks. If quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck and, believe me, I know these ducks. In fact, the only reason that the article has not been subjected to a create-protect is because it acts as a honeypot. Please can you review the SPI archive. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Rebecca Bardoux

Hi, notifying all previous talk participants of an RfC: Talk:Rebecca_Bardoux#RfC: Should the article mention her comedy career? -- GreenC 13:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Shevchenko‎

This sounds silly BUT if I only replace the article text then it won't count towards articles I have created, it'll just look like the article was already there and I added to the text...so...yea lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy removal of Garage Beat 66 series

While this was taken to AfD, it strikes me that your declining the speedy on grounds of "creative works not eligible" is dead wrong. Try WP:A9, which specifically refers to musical recordings. I'd refresh my recollection of CSD, in your shoes. Ravenswing 04:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated under A7, and creative works are expressly excluded from A7. It strikes me that the subject was ineligible for A9, because it's a series of releases, not an individual recording; and because the compilations include tracks from notable artists. (A9 doesn't appropriately address compilation albums anyway). Plus there's coverage out there, some of the albums have charted on CMJ, Sundazed does a lot of notable archival work and I think there are enough legitimate GNG issues to warrant a discussion. Yes, the article is lousy, as it stands, but it's the first article from an inexperienced user, speedied 11 minutes after creation, and that's bad pracxtice, too. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund F. Brennan

Not a question of notability - straw man argument of yours. I will not restore an attack page - ask some other admin, but restoration restores all the history including the attack which would be a WP:BLP violation but who knows some admin would probably ignore BLP for you - Not I. If you want an article about the guy, please write one fully sourced and not an attack page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass redirects and deletion of content by TTN

You apparently have spent a lot of time and effort dealing with the mass redirect and deletion efforts of User:TTN. I had to track back when I discovered this edit that apparently got reverted. But you did not go back. Why? Is this legit or did you just not notice it? Looking at this guys's history, I see a couple thousand such moves, not all of them reverted. You are much better up to speed on this; Should all of these get reverted? If so, we should ask a Bot be created. Otherwise it seems like an effort requiring a team of users to go back and analyze each edit. Trackinfo (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one just got by me; I've fixed it now, thanks. TTN's edits, unfortunately, need to be reviewed rather than bulk-reverted. Some really weren't controversial (overdetailed coverage of RPG elements); some dubious (TV episode removal targeting high-profile creators, particularly George RR Martin; some clearly atrocious (coverage of literature where extensive coverage/criticism exists, including at one point Shakespeare). TTN also quite often didn't follow WP:BEFORE, sometimes never even checking the articles he redirected (most flagrantly, as I recall, redirecting a business to a list of Transformers characters because they shared a fairly common name; and redirecting a noteworthy, award-winning sf novella to a TV series which adapted it years later.) There were at least two Arbcom cases, lots of edit wars, and lots of controversy. I've been trying to work my way down from the most inappropriate edits until there's serious debate, starting with the literature-related ones, the mistargeted ones (remarkably frequent), and the boilerplate nothing-but-plot rationales that didn't match the articles. Arbcom quite prudently established a "fait accompli" rule to prohibit undiscussed mass edits made faster than they can be intelligently reviewed, and I'm not going to push that limit in cleaning up the mess, even though TTN did in creating it. Hope that's helpful. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me to that rule. I've run into mass editors of several different colors. I know they could not possibly be giving due consideration to their edits and that would give me a legitimate policy to stop them, by ARB force if necessary. On WP I feel like I have to be a lawyer to keep up on policy for all this crap other irresponsible editors pull. BTW, I noticed TTN suddenly stopped in early August. Was he stopped or did he just suddenly come to his senses? Trackinfo (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is here: WP:FAITACCOMPLI. It was established in this ArbCom case [2] where, not coincidentally, sanctions were levied on TTN. My impression is that lately TTN stops editing once other editors notice what he's doing and object, then returns weeks or months later in hopes of flying beneath the radar. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black pied cattle

Hallo,

because of invalid speedy argument you request an RFD for the redirects Black Pied cattle, Black Pied (cattle) and Black pied (cattle). How do I have to do that? What argument shall I present you?

These three are no reasonable redirects to the German Black Pied Dairy. That came to exist because of MOS:ORGANISMS, Use natural disambiguation not parentheticals when possible, per WP:AT policy (and per article's only source) and same capitalization scheme as the other articles in this category-arguments.[3] All without any reference, that these are proper names for the German Black Pied Dairy. I nearly unknown breed in the English World.

There are no redirects for Black cattle, White cattle, Red cattle. If you are asking for black pied cattle breeds, here are some, the list may not be complete. These are only the breeds with a "Black Pied"-name...

Ural Black Pied cattle Aosta Black Pied cattle Swiss Black Pied cattle Baltic Black Pied cattle Breton Black Pied cattle German Black Pied cattle Russian Black Pied cattle Beijing Black Pied cattle Siberian Black Pied cattle Estonian Black Pied cattle German Black Pied Dairy cattle Central Russian Black Pied cattle Belgian Black Pied Holstein cattle Czech Pied cattle Hungarian Pied cattle Slovakian Pied cattle

Thanks for your help. --PigeonIP (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if the above seems a bit abrupt. I am currently a bit touchy about some breed moves. --PigeonIP (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete them as inappropriate redirects if there is nothing linked to them. Is that really what is wanted? Deb (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: Yes, that is, what I am asking for. There are only 4 WP-links to Black Pied cattle. I was not sure if I am allowed or expected to correct them. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the links seem to be from talk pages and Wikipedia pages rather than articles, so I don't know that it is worth changing them. Deb (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: My sense has been that there's some sort of a content dispute underlying this, which is why I suggested going to RFD when I declined the initial speedies. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Deb (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no content dispute. --PigeonIP (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if: there is still the question: how to do it (simple)? --PigeonIP (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of permitted logo from User:GeoffreyBH

I took care to note exactly why I had permission to use the logo, which had in any case been in common use since before my own period of office. The version you removed waa, in any event, my reconstruction from a monochrome logo. It was completely redrawn. Be all that as it may, simple good manners would have suggested at least contacting me before taking draconian action in pursuit of your personal agenda - whatever that may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Copyright violations are serious, removal notifications are not required, using someone else work, even if modified, without their permission is not allowed. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who took the trouble to read the tag would know that the use and the re-drawing were permitted in terms. Geoffrey BH 20:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs)

I would like to resolve this problem so that I may use mt logo without risk of improper deletion. If HW reads this, I would like to read his/her suggestion. Unfortunately, I'm not very sanguine because I read a long account of similar intervention. Wikipedia's DR process is attractive but I would like to solve the problem amicably. Geoffrey BH 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs)

Please propose for deletion

If you insist, [4], please propose that template for deletion. It provides a visual summary of all objects in the Solar System that have been imaged up close. This is not possible without that image, and hence that template should else be deleted entirely. --JorisvS (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:NFCC#9 straightforwardly prohibits the use of nonfree images outside articlespace, including use in templates. Non-free content policy also does not make exceptions based on educational-use-only licenses. Using a nonfree file in a template is automatically detected and reported; even if I were to ignore it, another editor would soon repeat the removal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is stupid not to make a distinction between images that have no free license at all and those that are free-to-use for educational purposes. But okay, you're enforcing this without regard to specifics and who makes that template useless, so have the guts to take the next logical step: propose it for deletion! --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the NFC issue has arisen before w/r/t that template, and the resolution was simply to remove the affected entry, which I've now done. And the WMF makes the distinction you're upset about. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that defeats the purpose of the template: to show all closely imaged objects. However, this way you gave me an idea how to salvage it: [5]. --JorisvS (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about Lutetia? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider archiving

My eyes! Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Knox AFD #2

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Antonio Biaggi

You know, instead of nominating a page for deletion why not help it out? Antonio Biaggi is a noteworthy porn star as he is very popular in the Gay community if you look at his Facebook page he has over 70,000 likes and has been in several porns. Also if you look at the external links section you will see that the page passes GNG as there is no original research needed all information comes from those sources if you look at them and the external links are the same as Matthew Rush (pornographic actor) so I do not understand how it has no reliable sources when the sources are in the external links. So can you please remove your propsal? Thanks! SummerFunandSun (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact that it took this long for him to get a page when he owns his own website, Biaggi Videos, has done a lot of pornographic films like Matthew Rush, etc. is astonishing. SummerFunandSun (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Hunter

You can contest the speedy but please don't just remove the tag, these Fairyspit socks are a pain in my ass and continue to create articles just to base it around Benedict Cumberbatch. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guías Amarillas

Hi, can you take the correct action to get this page deleted? I'm unfamiliar with the EN-wiki procedures. We received a complaint at OTRS, ticket number 2014100110006778. (I'm a member of the ES-wiki OTRS team). As far as I can see the claim in the message is accurate and the Guías Amarillas page indeed forms part of a scam. On other Wiki's where I am active, this would be a valid reason for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please help me in this case rather that ignoring me, while happy reverting. This is not helpful and you are causing scam to remain online. Jcb (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (member of the OTRS team)[reply]

I deleted the article, the evidence looks solid enough to me; if it is not, and someone can fully explain, it will be easy enough to restore.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of The Petroglyph Museum‎ and List of Azerbaijani musicians‎

I was hoping I could get you to reverse your decision concerning the speedy deletion of these two articles. While it is true that none of the relevant accounts were blocked when these two articles were created, per this discussion NovaSkola was indefinitely topic banned from editing any thing relating to Azerbaijan and Armenia (except sports articles). Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very valid point, but . . . I wouldn't be surprised if whoever checks the speedy noms next falls into the same trap I fell into, because the G5 templates don't provide any way to indicate a topic ban has been violated, or to cite the ban notice. SOP is pretty much to check the block log and notices, but in this case the log and the final notice didn't mention topic ban violations. Why don't you just AFD them; I expect there'll be a rapid snow close if not a speedy. Meanwhile, I'll draft a proposal to add a topic ban-specific template for G5. Sorry for the inconvenience. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion for you

I see that you are frequently at loggerheads with other editors and your page has been vandalized many times. I would suggest some introspection on how you handle this matter of deleting NFC. These are articles which people have worked on long and hard about topics that they are passionate about. When you take unilateral action (even though it was held up by more experienced editors) and treat contributors like children, posting warnings on their page and being generally, in my opinion, a bully when enforcing Wikipedia policy, you cannot be surprised that people are rubbed the wrong way.

In my case for example, if you had brought it up to the NFC discussion board first, allowed a detailed discussion to take place with consensus, that entire unpleasantness could have been avoided. A little bit of tact goes a long way, especially when dealing with other people's hard work.Myopia123 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Cheban article

Hi Hullaballoo,

You removed the personal section of the Jonathan Cheban article. I would like to discuss this. I do not think this is gossip for several reasons.

1) When does a personal relationship become important in a bio? Is marriage the dividing line? Or does serious long-term dating count?

2) Cheban's celebrity always brings up the question of his sexuality. Some say he is gay; others say he has a romantic interest in Kardashian. Noting his dating in his personal life is a response to these questions.

3) Cheban made an appearance on celebrity matchmaker, which was written about in reputable news sources. His romantic status then becomes relevant, and thus the reference to his dating life.

I hope we can discuss this further.

Thanks, Robert ToppDogg10458 (talk)

Addendum: I am going to edit the paragraph to stress the relevance of the Personal Life section. (10-5-14 9:55 PM EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToppDogg10458 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Hunter (theatre director)

Isn't there a speedy delete for a not needed redirect? Because since there is only one Sophie Hunter, no need to have a (theatre director) redirect page, right? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Not needed" redirects go to WP:RfD, unless no target for the redirect exists. And redirects resulting from page moves, where incoming links exist, are generally not deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Early Long, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Hale. 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) 09:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening the case

Thanks for opening the case about Molly Ringwald. I was unaware of the larger issue. Dismas|^(talk) 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is to post 870!

Please, please, please archive. Some users browsers/internet connection makes this page almost impossible to load. 870 is by far the longest talk page TOC I've seen - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is a warning but moreso a proposal of me archiving this damn page for you. Cause I totally will! I'll even do it by dates if you want, it'll ease my OCD :) Oh and you have 24 hours to respond or I will take that as you want me to :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I just saved your page on my desktop. It was 3mb. This means that if I run out of mobile data it will cost me 60p (i.e a buck) for the priviledge of reading the latest diatribe aimed at you. Popcorn to entertainment this is a poor deal. Please archive.. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages of people you'd like to send this to with a friendly message.

On an unrelated note you really should archive your talkpage, If there was a Guinness Book of Worlds Records for the longest and biggest talkpage you sure as hell would win it! :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Turner (singer)

I'm not convinced of passing A7 without the groups having notability, but I see you already renominated with G12. This piece should go. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blessed Book of Beasts

per [Wikipedia:Notability (books)]

1. Book listing at amazon and a review from a christian website 2. Nada 3. Nada 4. nada 5. Nada

and please archive that talk page :/ Avono♂ (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Hibbert

Did you read the article? She was an author who was very conscious about her privacy and hid behind several pseudonyms. She had (and still has) millions of fans all over the world who never knew that they are reading books in different genres from the same author. She wrote ~ 200 books over 60 years. That is why there are so many different publicity images of her - across the different genres and over the years. How did she manage this fantastic output? By taking her typewriter with her wherever she went. Including images of her publicity stills and her photograph with her typewrite significantly enhances the reader's understanding of her life. Do NOT delete these images again or your behavior will tip over into vandalism. R0x5r (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of that is more than adequately conveyed by text alone. And don't pretend that disagreeing with you in a content dispute is vandalism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really, text alone is sufficient to show what a person really looks like? Why did we invent photography? Have you ever taken a photo in your life? I repeat - do NOT vandalize the page with your nonsensical edits!!! R0x5r (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey seal copyrights

The 3 seals that you removed from my page are not non-free images, they are public domain, as per multiple court rulings in the United States, both by district, and federal judges. In fact, one of those 3 seals were directly involved in a court ruling.

According to section 2B of the Lanham Act: "No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--

(b)Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof." http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html

When a case arose in Houston on the usage of a county seal, a federal court ruled (15 U.S.C. § 1052(b)) that county seals can not be registered for trademark, or copyright. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1356.Opinion.9-26-2013.1.PDF

This ruling states that county seals, and other government symbols are not protected by copyright, or trademark. Under Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, it would appear that the 3 seals you removed from my profile are, infact, free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legionary74 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI mentioned your comments

FYI mentioned your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambolinaz, please feel free to participate there. — Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISP Supplies

Please demonstrate the claim of notability in this article. It's a simple unsourced statement that the company exists. As such it clearly meets the requirements of a db-a7. bite does not take precedence. Four different editors have now put the a7 speedy requerst on this article. This is not the first article to be created in the last few days that referenced the same company that was put up for speedy, and the article creator is already blocked. Furthermore, your summary description of the editor who put this article up for speedy likely qualifies as a personal attack. I suggest hat you revert yourself. Meters (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. None of that justifies speedying an article after its creator writes a single sentence. A7 is not mandatory, but following WP:BEFORE is prescribed by deletion policy. I believed that editors who make a point of racing to tag articles, especially by new editors, without having thne simple decency to let their creators complete them are pestilential, a negative to the project, and such behaviornis accurately characterized as abusive. Defending and enabling them is hardly better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have userfied the article. The editor is welcome to create a reliably sourced article that demonstrates notability once he returns. Meters (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I consider than an attack on all 3 editors who restored the speedy as well? Meters (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And your opinion does not excuse your attack on the original a7 requester. The request was nothing out of the ordinary. Meters (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just argue that abusive editing behavior doesn't justify its description as abusive? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stated that I didn't think your opinion was correct that that the tagging of this article with a db-a7 justified you calling the editor abusive. and since you've now labelled me as borderline trolling for having a polite conversation, I'll be unwatching this thread. Please don't post on my talkpage. Meters (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cam30

I am not sure I understand why the Cam30 article was not deleted. While as an administrator I know you have a lot of leeway on the decisions you make; I just wanted to show where I was coming from. I did a google search on Cam30, there are two hits for this artist [6] and cam30world.com, which seems to be the artists own website. In addition this article was deleted back in November. At that time the editor was also issued instructions on the guide to creating new articles and the article wizard. I try to be very careful in the articles I nominate for speedy delete. I have made a few errors and I am learning. If I knew why you decided to keep this article it would help me in the future. Thanks, VViking_TalkEdits 17:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not an admin, although I certainly take enough abuse here to make people think I'm one. Any editor (except the actual article creator) can decline a speedy. Second, as I stated clearly in the edit summary, your tagging was far too hasty. The article was created only three minutes before you tagged it, and the creator was obviously still working on it one minute before you tagged it. There was no way to tell what the article creator's finished product would have been, and even in its current state it includes a minimal assertion of significance via the subject's involvement with an apparently notable creative work. Overly aggressive and hasty tagging like this damages Wikipedia by driving away new, potentially productive contributors and is not balanced by the minimal damage caused by allowing mostly harmless articles on possibly non-notable subjects to remain on the project briefly. There is even a consensus developed template, Template:Uw-hasty, to warn repeat offenders to stop such tagging. Third, the prior speedy deletion of an article is in no way precedential, and does not prevent anyone, even the creator of the deleted version, from attempting to write a new and more satisfactory article. Attempts to correct prior failures are encouraged here, not subjected to cursory deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I was unaware of UW_Hasty. I will be more carefull in the future.

New articles on incidents called terrorism

"We ought to adopt a hard-and-fast rule that every incident treated as a terrorist killing by reliable media and receiving substantial initial coverage is deemed to satisfy requirements for an article." How would one go about making such a policy effective?ShulMaven (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Darshan Kumar for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darshan Kumar 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/Darshan Kumar 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article, but I've also nominated it for deletion since it was a csd-tagged article. This is not meant as a punishment or criticism, merely an attempt to allow the community to decide the matter instead of leaving the issue of deletion in the hands of one administrator. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input at the afd. On too many occasions the contributors do not weigh in there, and as a result the article get re-deleted. I'll be honest and say that I had forgotten that there were notability guidelines specifically for people in the entertainment industry, so I will need to reread that material again to better remember it in the future for moments like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is completely and utterly incorrect... :)

The section title is meant in jest because of one particular comment you made on the Laura Marano talk page, "Scalhotrod and I really don't like each other, and I'd be inclined to stay out of it if it weren't so wrongheaded and disruptive."

Quite simply, I do not dislike you. Though I can understand why you may feel this way and, for that matter, there have been several instances where I could have responded in a "tit for tat" manner to many of your edits and comments, but have not for this reason.

As much as your impression is that we are at odds with each other, my opinion of you is that your actions serve to make me a better Editor and a more knowledgeable and experienced member of this online community. And for that I am thankful of your attitude and efforts.

From my perspective, the only way you could have any detrimental affect on my Wikipedia activities would be to cease your interaction with me altogether. But I don't see that happening, I think in some way you enjoy our interaction as frustrating for you as it may come across.

Take care and Happy Holidays to you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Veronique Halloin

Hi, there. This article is an autobiography by someone who had evidently confused Wikipedia with LinkedIn or Who's Who. Speedying it seemed the most likely way to keep her from following up by posting her résumé. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is not to be used to prevent things you think might happen. Judging by the lengthy and well-referenced article on the French wikipedia, this person is clearly notable, and appears rather unlikely to need to advertise herself on en-wiki. Try to follow WP:AGF, and remember that it is almost never appropriate to A7 an article less than one minute after a new editor has begun to work on it! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, HW. Not to belabour the point unduly, but I note that the French Wikipedia article is largely the work of one IP editor (one who persisted over other editors' objections that "Ce n'est pas un CV") and is likely an undetected autobiography/vanity page. Creating an autobiography on English Wikipedia is also strongly discouraged; and this one made no claim about the importance of the subject, so I believe it fell within A7. Moreover, the editor has thankfully decided not to expand her autobiographical article, and as such it's now a BLP lacking a single source. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that you tagged it only seconds after the creator began writing it, it's hardly surprising that the creator was discouraged from continuing immediately. This particular type of tagging is not consider good behavior, and there's even a standard template discouraging it. Template:Uw-hasty COI alone is not grounds for deletion, let alone speedy deletion, and the subject's academic credentials are more than enough to survive A7. If the article ends up including overly promotional text, all that would be required is cleanup via routine editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe you're right about the hastiness. As for the noteworthiness of the subject, I tend to go with the guideline: "if your life and achievements are... notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged: I guess I strongly discouraged one. Ten lashes with a wet noodle. Anyway, happy editing! -- Rrburke (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's

Hey Hullaballoo!

Just wanted to say I don't have an issue with you reverting my AfD closures. I do prefer being contacted prior and being allowed the chance to do so myself (of which I'd do without hesitation). Thanks though! Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at your talk page while you were posting here. I was particularly concerned by your lending credibility to the accusations of bad faith by Rebecca1990, who has a track record of casting aspersions (and worse) to gain advantages in AFD discussions (not to suggest you in any way share in such behavior). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to stay impartial and give equal weight to all (within reason) - I don't know of her track record and I generally don't do an in depth check when deciding the validity of !votes :) Thanks for the heads up on her though - I'll go do a little bit of digging now. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice from Technical 13

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz archival. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiment against automatic archiving, but do you mind if I just toss everything older than a year on an archive subpage? I've done it before for other people, it's generally harmless, it helps if you don't want the hassle of doing it yourself, and it'll keep the pesky people off your back for some time. ;) Let me know! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]