Calabe1992 (
talk |
contribs) |
|||
Line 4,184: | Line 4,184: | ||
This user [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] completely trolled this article [[Choky Ice]] Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LowKey08|LowKey08]] ([[User talk:LowKey08|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LowKey08|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
This user [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] completely trolled this article [[Choky Ice]] Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LowKey08|LowKey08]] ([[User talk:LowKey08|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LowKey08|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:I suggest you read [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NFCC]], as well as [[WP:NPOV]]. It's utterly ridiculous to describe a BLP including a large number of unreferenced quotes attributed to the article subject as "perfectly sourced". [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 02:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
:I suggest you read [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NFCC]], as well as [[WP:NPOV]]. It's utterly ridiculous to describe a BLP including a large number of unreferenced quotes attributed to the article subject as "perfectly sourced". [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 02:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
You obviously have something against this actor CUT THE CRAP, all is well sourced especially the part where it says "career" It states the date, the name of the site etc.. I REPORTED YOU FOR VANDALISM! STOP TROLLING!!!--[[User:LowKey08|LowKey08]] ([[User talk:LowKey08|talk]]) 03:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
Welcome to Wikipedia, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:
There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{ helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! — Cel es tianpower háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a speedy deletion is a speedy deletion. WP:CSD is very clear in this regard. These articles do not fit these criteria, so please try proposing it for deletion or putting it on AFD instead. Thanks and regards, — Cel es tianpower háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, please read the Talk pages of articles before nominating them for AfD or trying to Speedy them. The List of gay porn stars article was previously nominated for deletion and the result was "keep".— Chidom talk 12:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that an editor by the name of Hoary is very bais when it comes to deleting photographers from the fashion photography section. Just recently I added a photographer the shoots for Vogue Magazine and also has won very prestigious awards... all this information is verifiable, and referecnced. I am writing you because I see that you have stood upto this person, in the Luke Duval AFD section. Another, much more established photographer named Seth Sabal has been deleted by Hoary and this photographer, shoots for shot for Vogue; and won the same award as Luke Duval the photographer you protected from deletion. Can you please help me. Thank you Sarah PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will make citations corrections change tone to be less promotional. I know Grace personally and she used to go by Amy Gilbertson. She was in Miss America and runner up to Miss Iowa. I will site her accomplishments and also correct any inadvertent deceptions on my part. I am NOT a promoter, my name is Jeffrey Fry and am a personal friend of Ms. Sharington and thought her life noteworthy. Of course, I bow to your guidelines as you see fit to implement and thank you for your understanding and consideration. You can find me on LinkedIn and Facebook. I live in Austin, TX (jxf@austin.rr.com) is my email address and I invest and help start ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeteye ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with Jenny Lynn, Raye Hollitt, Guy Lafleur, and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under WP:Fair use. fbb_fan 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The Builders and The Butchers wikipedia page. - The image that was posted was given to use with permission of the band. Why did you delete this? User:Switchbladesista11:26, 28 December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.23.69 ( talk)
Hi there! I was wondering why you made this edit. Gallagher's drug-use in his early days is pretty widely documented – he's even had a few laughs about it during interviews. And the fact that he ripped off "Get It On" is also pretty well-known, although I agree that may have been written in a slightly POV way. But do you think that we should just remove his recreational habits from the article? I wouldn't want to start an edit war, so I just thought I'd see what you think. This paragraph states that if an allegiation is notable, verifiable and important to the article, it should not be removed. And personally, I think Gallagher using drugs was one of the best things to happen to British music – without it, Oasis would have just been some shoddy garage band :) But that's just me! Well, please let me know your thoughts. Happy editing, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara, I've forwarded the email to the PR dept giving permission for the image. Babub→ Talk 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Would have been easy to check that I wasn't libelling her. She freely admits to it on her (already linked) bio/FAQ on her site. So please don't pull out the WP:BLP too quickly. Cheers. MadMaxDog 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP says that if comments like that aren't sourced, delete immediately. Hard to see how I could act "too quickly". Please explain. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the credit card / porn star identity incident you mentioned in AnonEMouse's RFA, but I would like to take a closer look at it. Could you provide some more direct diffs related to Mouse's involvment? Dragons flight 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You were very civil, and raised appropriate points. I could hardly do less than respond, briefly at first, then in more detail when JoshuaZ asked. I can't wait for the questions! :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, CalendarWatcher reverted you here [1]. I agree with you that the merge should be done with a little more effort put into it as to what's necessary and what's not by some users familiar with the topic. I didn't understand his reasoning that 'nothing is stopping you' while merging the article making that impossible. It just sounded abrasive. I know a little about the show myself so I could possibly step in if need be, but as you said, it shouldn't be merged yet. Cheers! Cheers_Dude ( talk) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I might also like to note that this editor is running on a second chance granted by an admin in which he really should be blocked right now for recent violation of the 3RR, as shown here [2]. His editing practices are not improving and you are not the only user he has shown uncivil editing habits with as shown here [3] and here [4]. Given that he should be blocked for violation of 3RR, an admin should most definitely be contacted if he engages in edit warring or violates the 3RR again. Cheers! Cheers_Dude ( talk) 10:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If you blank content on User:Calton again, I will block you for disruptive editing. I've already blocked your IP once, so I suggest you stop. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In relation to this edit [6], DRV is generally only for admins since they're the ones who can see the full text of the deletion pages. That being said, do you have a link for the cahce of the full text of the deleted article? I'd like to see it and offer help, if I can. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)Without proper sourcing, the subject wasn't notable. I've tried to be as helpful as I can to the author, but if you upload an unfinished, unsourced article to the mainspace, it's probably going to come back down pretty quickly. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion here and Auburn Pilot's warning a few sections above on this page, I see that you have continued to disruptively edit User:Calton whilst logged out. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours. I will post the standard block template, which contains details of how to request an unblock, below. Gb T/ c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Gb T/ c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not make the edit I am accused of making. I am obviously not the editor who did so. I am in North America, from a school/library network. As I asked last week, this can easily be checked out as true The banned editor I am for no good reason accused of being is described as being in the Czech Republic, and the IPs involved are traced there by the "GEOLOCATE" function on the contributions page. The accusations were made in a discussion I started. But after I had logged out because the library was closing. The discussion was closed before I could respond. And there was no evidence presented at all. If you examine the edit histories there is no resemblance between what I do and what the user I am accused of being does. Even the administrator who began accusing me of being a sockpuppet (without saying whose) now says on his talk page "I have no idea if you are related to the old sockpuppet accounts mentioned." I also want to say that the disputed edit was not improper. It is the kind of deletion that the Arbitration Committee called for with regard to BLP violations on userpages. No one has seriously claimed that the material I deleted did not have BLP violations in it. I will post more from the Arbcom decisions but I have to research them a little. If this is not good enough then I ask to be unblocked so I can take this to Arbitration since I was just following Arbcom guidelines ! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
While checkuser confirms that aspect of your unblock request, the blocking admin makes a good argument that your behavior has been nonetheless disruptive. — Coren (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Given that checkuser confirms that aspect of your claim, I've asked the blocking editor to comment here on whether that was the sole basis for the block. — Coren (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ unblock}} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Wikipedia discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Wikipedia policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Jimmy Wales link [8]
From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi
6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
6.6 The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
From request for clarification of the same case, arbitrators statements that directing such comments at specific people crosses the line:
My analysis is that the statement in context would definitely be read as Bedford's own opinion put into a crassly extreme form, but that no-one would seriously read it as a literal statement. It is borderline but I would incline to the view that we cannot insist on its removal. This is partly because, in applying the complained-of remarks generally without naming the users, it is difficult to read it as personally insulting. Users unfamiliar with the dispute, intrigued by the use of such a forceful description, are far more likely to hold it against Bedford especially if they investigate the circumstances. I think in his best interests he should rephrase his remarks, but I strongly suspect that it is his own reputation that will suffer if he choses not to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...I agree with Brad and Sam. While Bedford's comment is highly distasteful to many in the community, it is not directed at anyone specific and is in his own user space. If it were a directed comment, I support removing it. As it is, it's primary negative affect is to the person that wrote it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That is just last month!
From the similar request for comment on Law Lord:
Outside view by Fred Bauder Discourtesy is an increasing problem on Wikipedia. Lack of courtesy has driven a number of editors away from Wikipedia. An assertion by an editor who has departed that the reason they left was lack of courtesy is acceptable. A personal attack would involve not only identifying the person, but an attack that is personal, not merely an assertion that Wikipedia policy was not followed. We should not create a situation where not only is the policy violation tolerated, but even mention of it is forbidden.
Users who endorse this summary:
Fred Talk 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) This is really not problematic at all, and removing and protecting the user page(!) to remove that sentence is just plain absurd. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC) PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Davewild (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC) MikeHobday (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) --NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cheers dude (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Agree with Conti. لennavecia 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The best defense again libel/slander is the truth. Are there rude admins? Yes. Are there abusive admins? Yes. Are there admins who should lose the bit? Hell yes. Is it possible that Law Lord is in fact tired of dealing with them? Yes. Case closed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Ray (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) --Smashvilletalk 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) SIS 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Locke Cole • t • c 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You may be pleased to know that Jimmy Wales has made comments supportive of you in relation to your efforts to remove unacceptable comments from Calton's user page and has suggested that the admin who blocked you might want to reconsider his position as an admin (not directly related to your blocking but still related to this matter). Then again you may already know or you may not care. I thought I'd mention it anyway given the bizarre way you were treated over this. 87.254.80.49 ( talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that by starting this ANI with regards to Calton, that you have put yourself squarely in Guy's cross hairs. Be careful, they will now try to spin this so that Calton comes off as the victim here, not the aggressor. I suggest you bring this matter straight to Jimbo. 78.102.139.114 ( talk) 10:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I told you so, they are turning this into "Calton is the victim" and right on cue Guy jumped in. They are also claiming you are the banned Truthcrusader person, of course no one will run a checkuser to verify or disprove it. again, take this to Jimbo.
78.102.139.114 (
talk)
14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
See? With all the BS flying around about Calton claiming you are Truthcrusader, the initial reason WHY you filed the ANI is lost forever. Also lost is the two personal attacks he made a few days ago on two other editors.
78.102.139.114 (
talk)
00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. With regard to your edits to the Kate Jackson article, specifically with regard to your removal of the information regarding Jackson's two treatments for cancer, it seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider that the appropriate edit here would not be to remove the uncited material, but to A) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section.
If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search "Kate Jackson" "breast cancer" and add the reference yourself. As I read that you do your editing work during time at a library, it would seem a greater degree of source information would be available to you there than the average person, as libraries typically subscribe to paid news sites. Barring this, you should take note of the other information on the page relevant to your edit: the Category:breast cancer survivors page links to the Kate Jackson article, and this is evident from that category's tag in the Jackson article. But what is the value to you or another reader of removing this fact from her biography, and from the list of cancer survivors?
Kate Jackson was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and again around 1991. While the first bout was something she kept secret, the second made her decide to make her health publicly known, resulting in her being the subject of a cover story in People magazine. She also underwent open heart surgery in 1994 after discovering she had been born with an Atrial septal defect. She has been active in spreading awareness of both conditions. Please take an interest in the subjects of your edits; when they are clearly not vandalism, spend at least the same minute or two searching for a source as you would editing the material out. If you don't care enough to do so, the answer is to place a cite tag or to walk away from the article. A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to. Abrazame ( talk) 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I saw you previously prodded Curtis' article as NN and for having no reliable sources, so I just thought I'd let you know I AfD'd it for basically the same reasons the other day, if you wanted to join in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzareya Curtis Mbinebri talk ← 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the Robert Mihaly AfD page. I agree with your feedback! Carolinequarrier ( talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Hullaballoo, I read your "Strong Keep" for the Axelsson Living persons bio, and I'd have to disagree. Reading thru the Swedish and German papers, she has no relationship to the Danish royal house but her boyfriend (they aren't engaged) does, distantly. (I do a lot of royalty stuff and it's hard to keep the "pretty princess!" fandom from swamping Wiki.) Her books aren't notable and the stuff that's in those articles is basically fluff that's paid public relations. There are literally thousands of minor German princes populating the country so I can't see why the girlfriend of one of them gets a Wiki page. Most of the supporting documentation is like reading the National Enquirer only with worse errors; for instance, B Bladen has her as non-English speaking although she was born, raised, and educated in the US through high school. Anyway, she looks pretty with makeup and her boyfriend must really like her, but I'm not seeing that as notable. Best to you, PR ( talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I undid to my last edition the article Krystle Lina because the references has been deleted, and after has been added the deletion quote, but if equal you think the article need more notabillity contact me again -- AchedDamiman ([[User talk:AchedDamiman|talk]]) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz- I writing in regard to your edits on articles Jessicka & Clint Catalyst, specifically with regard to your removal of information. It seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider finding the appropriate reference links rather then just removing entire subjects making the articles less factual. In the future please place a cite tag or leave the article "as is". A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to.
I am contacting you in good faith and hope that in the future you will follow wikipedia policy!
thanks, Xtian1313 ( talk) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE before criticizing editors who are attempting to enforce those policies. As another user commented on the article you say is about your wife earlier today, a Wikipedia article is "not an opportuinty to spam Wiki with everything related to her." [9] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have stated several times that Jessicka is my wife - examples here: [10] here: [11] & here: [12]
Understand, I am not being uncivil. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's wikipedia page. Removing links wasn't even your edit. See here: [13] I am fine with the edits made by User:Piano non troppo, as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands. Please don't deflect. I am stating facts. I am asking you to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking you to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section.
If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search . If you are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of COI with these articles.
As far a User:Tallulah13's talk page goes please reread what I wrote. [14] and I quote, "If you ever need a third party opinion ( for articles I don't have a COI with) please feel free to hit me up."
I do not know User:Tallulah13. I was being nice. Is being nice to somebody against wikipedia policy? I have not made edits on either Jessicka or Clint's pages. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 has not made edits on Jessicka's page. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 does not know my wife or Clint in real life. She said that my wife emailed her - ? Perhaps on Clint's behalf to say thank you?
In closing, I'm not spamming. I am not making edits. The links in question were not added by me. Is there another problem here that I don't know about? I came to you in good faith, if there's some sort of issue - please enlighten me before I involve others. All items that you've removed have NOW been sourced. Rather then look for the source yourself trying to expand the articles in question, you just removed entire sections! How is that constructive?
I am asking you nicely to please follow wikipedia policy. I am still familiarizing myself with wikipedia but I can tell when somebody has a clear COI when editing certain articles. I look forward to resolving this matter quickly, Xtian1313 ( talk) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments made here: [15]
"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com."
My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com. If you have some issue with her legitimacy, might I nicely suggest that you leave editing her wikipedia page to user(s) who have no COI and have neutral third party opinions. This reason is why I myself do not edit her page.
"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [110], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)"
The episode was filmed in LA not Germany. Germany's Next Topmodel, Cycle 4 You know what people say about assuming. A little research on certain topics goes a long way.
"A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka."
I have no idea what promoting business you are talking about. The end of your ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what you are alluding to. I am telling you it's simply not true. I am coming to you in good faith. If you have some issue with my wife, Clint Catalyst, or anybody whom you assume they are friendly with being legitimate and deserving wikipedia pages, might I suggest that the best course of action is for you to allow user(s) who can be 100% neutral, fair, and willing to do research to edit their articles.
Xtian1313 (
talk)
15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, do not post silly things as you did on my talk page. Vanthorn ( talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have stated who I am. This is the only name I sign in under. I have given an email address where I can be reached. I have not edited articles that I have a COI with. The fact you, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have a weird obsession in editing all things associated to my wife and myself. [16]
I believe that you are Gaming the system.
Xtian1313 ( talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am betting that he is some homeless guy since he says that he hangs out in libraries and that is where he gets his internet access. Thats the kind of thing that a homeless guy would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.175.187 ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this all unfold for a while now. I am a fan of a lot of the people listed on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit list. I agree he/she certainly has a COI with all of these articles/individuals. I'm really not sure why a moderator or administrator isn't doing something about this person as they truly are being destructive on a lot of well written wikipedia pages. Parenttrap ( talk) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggested by User:Jayron32 here [17] - This is my one and only account. Please feel free to check my IP address. Parenttrap ( talk) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hullaballoo! I believe this will be of interest to you: User_talk:AuburnPilot#Help. Essentially, User:Xtian1313 is attempting to out you as being me or my boyfriend. Obviously, for one, that's just not true, outing people is against wiki policy. User:Xtian1313 outed me and attempted to out User:Snuppy as someone, a while ago, and has been repeatedly informed that this is against policy. I believe that the person behind User:Xtian1313 has a long history of editing articles under various revolving IP's and usernames, including User:KurtneyLovelace and User:RickeyGoodling. There is a history of articles related to Scarling and the core member Jessicka being built up/promoted by these IP's/usernames while articles of "perceived enemies" have been continusously torn down with negative/unnecessary/unproductive edits, since day one. These IP's have also included the names of Scarling and Jessicka everywhere on wikipedia, essentially promoting/building up this person/band everywhere, all over wikipedia, even on the page for Silver Lake, California!
Not to junk up your page with personal experiences, but my boyfriend Kyle Justin was in their band, and his former bandmates (the 2 core members) do not like him, and neither does the person behind all these edits. ::clears throat:: I created a profile for him last year ( Kyle Justin) before we were together and before I was in his band, not really understanding the policies of wiki involving conflicts of interest. I've since been outed/outed myself. And, myself and a good friend of mine, who created the articles related to Skeleteen, no longer use the same account. I realize now I have been in violation of wiki policies before, and have made a concerted attempt to not violate them again. In any event, the articles for Kyle Justin, TC Smith, and Robin Moulder (all people this person doesn't like) have been torn down repeated/obsessively since they were put up. It's all in the history. Thank you for reverting the most recent edits to the Kyle Justin page done by this person, as it's obviously the same person doing unproductive/destructive/possibly hateful things. Even if the photos need to be taken down (I don't know), it's not right for that user to be gaming the system. Kyle even came on here on User:Chzz's talk page to ask if someone could delete the article about him, because he doesn't want to be lumped into a category with the fame-junkies/minor league "internet celebrities"/wannabes. (You can find that here: User_talk:Chzz/Archive_5#deleting_article_on_me.3F.) He got permission from Chzz to delete defamation of character/libel/legal threats and false accusations against him by User:Xtian1313 on Chzz's talk page, but was unsuccessful at having his article deleted, as Chzz says it conforms to the notability standards. In any event, I hope some of this will help you out... you can delete all this to clean up your page. Just trying to help you out with more history on this situation. There are a lot more links I could send you for more information, if you like. (I honestly don't know if any of this helps.)
Anyway, thanks for looking out. It's about time. User:Snuppy and I have talked about doing a user check on this person for a while (go here to see that: User_talk:Snuppy#Check_user). I checked all the IP's you listed against the ones I have, they all go back to the same location (the precise longitude and latitude) in Los Angeles, California. It's been a long time coming... I believe it's obvious that this all comes down to one person and a user check isn't even needed to see that. Honestly, I would love for a user check to be done on myself just to prove that I haven't done ANYTHING to the pages related to her ( Jessicka) or Scarling... I could care less about their articles, as I do not ever want to associate with people like that, anymore, and neither does my boyfriend. :) Matt – Godblessyrblackheart (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering how listing books that Mr. Catalyst has authored with ISBN numbers is considered WP:RS or WP:BLP. I am just curious as I personally see no problem with these edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 17:07
Just out of curiosity, do you know what in the world everyone is claiming your COI is with the article? I've warned User:Tjcrowley to stop with the blatant reverting but I think we need a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to get some sanity on this. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You removed one citing source representing actress Ann Jillian and declared it unreliable. For what particular reason?
UWEC School Classs at 173.26.80.178 ( talk) 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hullaballo,
I notice that you, too, have been trying to clean up the Lenora Claire article which -- when I stumbled on to it -- read rather more as a press release. In reviewing the edit history I see SPA LenoraClaire has been active in editing it as has a Los Feliz Los Angeles ip which I suspect to be controlled by Ms Claire. Most recently another ip vandalised the talk page to delete a COI note I added. Do you think it worth reporting these socks or protecting the page or something else? Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a note at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Clint_Catalyst about the COI concerns with Clint Catalyst. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that the sock puppet investigation you started has come to a conclusion, "Conclusions I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser." [18]
I myself am not editing these articles, for obvious reasons. Please allow editors who do not have a conflict of interest with these subjects and can maintain a neutral point of view to edit these articles. fair? Whatever issues you have with me, please feel free to email me at scarlingmusic@aol.com so we may take them off wiki. Thank-you. Xtian1313 ( talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz Xtian1313 ( talk) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have prodded a number of these articles within a short timespan (minutes). It seems likely that you have made no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE. A number of the pages do make claims to notability, a porn star with a Magna cum laude university degree, a porn start with a black belt in tae-kwondo and bronze medal from Junior Olympics, a pornstar which has appeared in every major men's magazine, a porn star with a whoppin' film count (161), sprinkled with nominations within that film industry, some multiple; and a person (photographer) for whom I think the bio-porn is not even relevant.... It raises the probability that someone with an interest in the topic could establish notability. I'm therefore not at all sure that your nominations are uncontroversial and hence suitable for PROD. Reading some of the posts above also leads me to believe, that it is defensible for me to revert those PRODs, which I have done. Power.corrupts ( talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed an edit of yours from AN3 [19]. The section is closed, and your edit was unhelpful. Please seek to avoid inflammatory language William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo. I took a look at the case you recently filed at WP:AN3. If you can establish that people connected with the subject are editing their article, you could file at WP:COIN. This could be a better venue than AN3. Due to the nature of your work, you may wind up sounding combative. But if COI is calmly assessed, reasonable remedies can be put in place, oftentimes by agreement. Admin action is possible in cases where nothing else seems to work. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I swear I did not do that. Someone is messing with my account. Even though I have changed my password. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ( talk · contribs)☺ 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected your user page due to anon vandals. William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep it short with you as I did with Swancookie.
I have no interest or care as to what the ongoing dispute is concerning yourself and several other users.
My sole intent was to get all this into dispute resolution and stop cluttering up talk pages, message boards, and using helpme templates. That is all, I have no sides and I don't care to. Keegan ( talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I never put spam links in any article. I actually just clicked the link and it took me to scans of a Nylon magazine article. How is that vandalism? If you're having trouble accessing the article, please take that up with the site manager, not me. Thanks. -- MgCupcake ( talk)
Just so you know, you don't have to be an admin to mark a topic "resolved". -t'shael chat 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
We have proof that you are abusing your powers and privileges in regard to external link deletion. Please leave the name of your supervisor so way may send said proof forward. I hope you learn a lesson from this and cease to use your own personal bias to hurt the wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalCorp ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I declined your request for PP of Julie Benz, but you should certainly renominate it if the vandalism starts up again. I believe it is only one disruptive editor, which should be able to be handled through warnings/blocks. It would be great if you could issue warnings as well. I won't always be logged in, so again issue warnings and feel free to renominate it if the vandalism continues. Thanks for your help! Plastikspork ( talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks much better now. Plastikspork ( talk) 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you justify deleting my entry but retaining the entry about her appearing on Playboy TV? Kuzosake ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your input on this topic: Template talk:Infobox adult female#Official website in infobox and ext. links section
Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for catching the Jodie Foster mis-edit re. Yale School of Drama cat. That editor also added the same cat to the
Meryl Streep article. I don't know if it's true in Streep's case, but I've asked the editor via User:Talk page to stop removing the Yale U. cat. Even if Streep or any megastar attended the Drama school, readers may still look for them in the Yale U. cat as well.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`.
15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note on Mayer Brown. I wasn't comfortable deleting this as a speedy, since there were non-infringing versions and, as you rightly pointed out, it was a complicated case. Instead, I took a chainsaw to it and rewrote everything outside the info box. Mind taking a look and letting me know if it works for you? Thanks! -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for catching the issue with that award. Cook has won an Emmy with NBC and I thought that was the one. I really do appreciate you catching it and fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for looking over the Dana Delany article. But I wanted to know further why you edited out from Dana's significant others people like Treat Williams and Henry Czerny. Yahoo Movies lists them both as significant others for Dana. And what source did you say was NNDB (and why do you think it's a bad source?) On the internet, I've found pictures of Dana with Treat Williams (standing close together). And my sense is the connection with Henry Czerny is real as well. How did you come to the conclusion that the sources which you removed were bad ones? Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I. early life (birth, schooling) II. New York City -- breaking into the business
Soap operas Broadway (critical reviews) Off-Broadway (critical attention) Key friendships and connections (Christopher Reeve, for example)
III. Early Hollywood years (TV guest starring spots, China Beach) -- establishing herself as a major actress
TV guest starring spots (showcasing her talent) China Beach (should include: how did she get this role? should get its own paragraph I think, mentioning Emmys plus critical attention) Movies TV movies Voice work (The Batman/Superman, Lois Lane, fan reactions, critical acclaim -- Why Dana = major voice talent)
IV. Later Hollywood years -- pursuing acting
More TV work (sitcoms that didn't get off the ground, critical reviews, etc) Other projects (narrating, Vietnam nurses, audio books) Guest spots on talk shows Dana-as-a-celebrity (being a presenter in awards shows, talk show appearances, interactions with fans) Causes (scleroderma, other causes)
V. Filmography VI. Awards VII. Notable achievements VIII. References
So, Hullabaloo, do you like this organizational scheme? I'm wondering what you think? I'm interested in getting feedback from excellent wikipedia editors such as yourself. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'd like to remind you to add your signature after any talk page posts or warnings so we know who you are ;-). Thanks. - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cassidy Cruise. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassidy Cruise. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I noted your comments in the edit summary for your removal of the entries from that section; to clarify, the discussion was not primarily about using Allmovie in the way that Erik implemented at Fight Club, but one over its suitability as an external link. The discussion petered out with no real conclusion—with no support, but also no consensus objection to such a use. I invite you to participate at Talk:Fight Club (film)#"See also" section, where your thoughts on Erik's intended use of the section would be appreciated. All the best, Steve T • C 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Chicapedia is not a reliable source. I intend to delete all reference to it except where in one case where it reinforces another reference. Please let me finish editting before you begin. Thanks
Hi, could you please explain to me why you removed my Rebecca Scott reference? How is this unreliable? It seems pretty reliable to me. Thanks! Asc85 ( talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent detective work there. — Sean Whitton / 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very sorry, for deleting things from Sophie Abelson, David Sturzaker & Michelle Lukes.
Redped
xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redped ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Roxy Panther has been removed. It was removed by Chuthya with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 304803778 by KevinOKeeffe (talk) asserts notability)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Chuthya before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Hmmm, that was added (making it notify the first user to tag) per suggestions at the BRfA. It's to avoid warning a vandalism reverter (say, a user tags the article, another user blanks (removing the PROD) ClueBot reverts (restoring the PROD), another user removes the PROD, ClueBot gets notified. Not that that's important, just my little defence ;). Anyway, I'll look into a way to get around this (possible using the date the PROD was added, or something similar). Thanks for letting me know :) - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi excellent Hullaballoo. Wondering if you'd advise me about an article. Many users feel the Gerald Celente article is a lopsided, one-way advertising piece for Celente, a gloom-and-doom forecaster and business consultant, talking head. Most "references" in the existing article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
So I spent a day researching the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly (2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain), and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I expect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the wikipedia article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's always making gloom-and-doom predictions (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
So I rewrote much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. And I posted my re-edit. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". (I did have comments on the talk page from earlier, but they were ignored). I'm wondering what to do here. Do you have any advice? I've posted comments on the reverting editor's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
you may be interested in this current conversation Ikip ( talk) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in one of the dispute resolution forums. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.
If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This edit: [21] is unacceptable. You are, in my view, personalising this debate too much. Please don't do that sort of thing again. It may be helpful to review WP:COOL, because as BWilkins has pointed out, you're not working amicably to resolve the dispute you started, you're engaged in a series of moves that (in my view) are more escalatory than they are conciliatory. Please try to edit more collegially and in the spirit of working together and seeking consensus instead of editing so confrontationally. Even if you think that in your view the other party or parties is/are being confrontational. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about causing the extra work there. Must have copied over the same template twice and didn't notice. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride scent 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
... you don't think Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano could compete for the same role??? Gotta admit, that one was pretty amusing... (which role, by the way?) Nice to meet you. Tvoz/ talk 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.
While I agree with the substance of what you say, please could you consider toning down some of the more extreme phrases?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick note...your User talkpage comes up with a size warning for being too big. Have you thought of archiving it in order to reduce it? Have a look at the source code from my my talkpage on setting it up, or feel free to ask! ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit here, I just wondered why you feel this source is unacceptable, as XBiz always indicate whenever their articles are a press release, such as here. Maybe your views could be incorporated into the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#External links. Thanks. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Every reference source I added to the Hank Skinner article points to either an actual court document from the case, or an article in a legitimate newspaper. Where possible, I also added a link to the same court document or article at the Hank Skinner advocacy site. Both sides have referenced material to support their edits, often from the same document. The article is hardly "poorly referenced. Where claims are unsupported, citation needed tags have been added. It's not like the article has been in a constant state of flux. The people who made those claims should have an opportunity to provide whatever sourcing material they have. As for my edits, I stand by them 100%. grifterlake ( talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
To describe the Jenrette's sexual escapades as merely "events that transpired during their marriage" is ludicrously bland. Avoiding libel doesn't need to sound like a legal brief. In version you reverted was far more modest than the saucy stories she's written about herself. 02:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You premised your revert on two editors having objected to the material. They have not. Because it therefore rests on an erroneous premise, you should rescind your reversion immediately.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
When you said that I hadn't left this user alone, I took that as a personal attack, because I have not done anything outside of Wikipedia policy. Frankly I did not target this user in any way, but merely did what I felt was necessary as an editor. When you looked through my edit history and publicized spelling mistakes that I made, I took it as a personal attack, because it really had no bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't expect people to be perfect and I expect that I too will make mistakes. What I don't expect is to have somebody attempt to embarrass me by pulling it out in a public forum. According to WP:PA, personal attacks are comments on contributors rather than content. Due to the fact that you commented on my occupation and edit history, I took this as an attack. I realize that this may not have been your intent, but it is how it came across. I was not calling your challenging my edits a personal attack. In fact you were correct that the article was not identical, which I did not notice when I typed that comment. I did notice it before the second time I created the redirect, and felt that it wasn't fundamentally different in terms of content determining notability. If you notice, the second conversion to a redirect happened three days after the article was recreated. So yes, I do feel that I afforded him time to improve the article before converting it back to a redirect. If you read the talk page, the editor didn't respond to anything that I had written, but rather just restated his point and undid my revision. My reason for tagging for speedy deletion was to get an administrator's opinion on the whole matter. I don't like edit wars, and I didn't want to be engaged in one. If the speedy was declined I would have left it be and tried to find sources. Which I actually did try to do before I converted to a redirect the first time and the second time. Sources such as [25] [26] & [27], which were all top listings on google, had some information, but either just connected him to HP Lovecraft or gave information that really didn't make him notable. For example, my great-great grandfather was considered a master plumber in his time. He was considered the top in his field in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings there. The info I have on him reads very similar to Whipple Van Buren Phillips. Does my ancestor merit an article any less because he's not related to anyone famous? My honest feeling is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion as the article stands. I listed it at AFD to form consensus. I stated my opinion, and that's exactly what it is, an opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with me, and in fact I don't expect you to. What I am asking is that you understand where I'm coming from on this, and realize this is not something I did out of the blue to cause problems for another editor, but rather something I felt should be done based on my own research and experience. HarlandQPitt ( talk) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hull,
Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hullaballoo. The reason the word "denied" was not used to get the point across that she says these rumors are incorrect is because "deny/denied" falls into the Wikipedia: Words to avoid category in this case. I have to state that it does make it sound as though she is lying. Whether we believe whatever she denies in this case to be a lie or not is beside the point, of course. If you have any other suggestions for a word to replace "refuted" (instead of "denied"), I am definitely up to listening to what you have to say about the matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
why did you delete my stuff that I wrote under influences? it was properly sourced and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumdrumdrummer ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Edit summary comments like "fake support for notability!" on Co-Ed Fever (film) do not support that assumption. Thanks. Jokestress ( talk) 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from leaving vandal warnings on an editor's page when there was no vandalism to begin with. So, this warning seems kind of redundent, doesn't it.
Having said that, I left a perfectly viable explanation in the edit summary when I originally removed the deletion notice. Did you even bother to look at the deletion header before reverting my edit and leaving me the unnecessary message? Please read the result of the fifth nomination. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the removal was more an expression of Ghostexorcist's frustration with the repeated nomination then vandalism. -- Nate t/ c 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
When you have time, can we please collaborate on how to make the Masiela Lusha page polished and presentable? As of now, Wiki is still citing a need for polishing and fixing -- more so with your re-editing.
I admire your eye on precision, and I feel I have a lot to offer as well, while supporting it with legitimate article links, etc.
I don't intend to "spam" or include bogus links, but I could use some help to make both your job and my job a little easier.
Thank you in advance,
Aaron W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronweinhaus ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the patience to get into a revision war with you, but Mandingo's penis size, though poorly sourced, is widely known and central to his fame. Your repeated attempts to remove it are particularly obnoxious given your refusal to participate in the Discussion page. I specifically started a topic related to the subject on the talk page; your summaries in your edit notes aren't cutting it. Reyemile ( talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hullabaloo,
How are you? I just wanted to let you know that even if this rumour started up on a certain blog, the rumour of the new castmembers has popped up on TV Guide.com http://www.tvguide.com/News/SNL-New-Cast-1009401.aspx as well as some other mainstream sites. Now I know they reference the original blog, but I just wanted to make you aware of the new sites featuring the news. I don't know what to make of it though. Guess we'll have to wait for the premiere! Thanks 70.29.242.22 ( talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) samusek2
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you. NW ( Talk) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You removed relevant and sourced material, with the rationale that the information or sources (or both) are too gossipy. I point out that The CW interview, whether a video or not, is a reliable source. E! news is also a reliable source, whether gossipy or not. How is it better to remove information about James Lafferty having dated Sophia Bush simply because you find it "too gossipy"? Flyer22 ( talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
And just to be clear, I am not against your other edits and removal of material from this article, and I left those edits intact. It is just the removal of Lafferty and Bush having dated that I objected to, which is why I reinstated it. It is not simply speculation. It was difficult for Chad Michael Murray and Bush to be on set together not only initially because they were previously married...but also because she was now dating one of his co-stars; his speaking out about this is what is in the article. Yes, he was the one to confirm the romance between those two, but I doubt he was lying, and those two have not denied it. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't care to argue with Sainty on genealogy - the guy knows what he's talking about. It may not technically meet the standards of a reliable source, but I would bet money that the information about the Boncompagni on his website is accurate. (I'm familiar with him because I used to read and occasionally post on alt.talk.royalty, where he was a regular. The guy has idiosyncratic opinions on some subjects, but he knows his shit). At any rate, we see here, at Leo van de Pas' genealogy site the entry on Prince Nicolo Boncompagni-Ludovisi, presumably the gentleman in question. Van de Pas's site is obviously self-published, but is generally pretty reliable, and most importantly, he lists his sources. Van de Pas provides the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and The Royal House of Stuart as his sources - those are both reliable sources on royal genealogy which ought to be discoverable in many research libraries. We should try to check them out ourselves, if we can, but I would be very surprised if they turned out to say anything different from Van de Pas' or Sainty's sites. The man's existence, descent from the reigning houses of Piombino, and so forth, seem to be easily discoverable. The marriage to Jenrette should also be sourced, though. I can understand that people doing obnoxious self-promotion on their own Wikipedia article is very annoying, and wish you luck in combatting such silliness, but I think this particular battle is an unnecessary one. john k ( talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I have sent you an email. Amsaim ( talk) 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, How do we stop people from changing his page? I know that it can be done. Angelo is getting very upset seeing the page change every other month, he wants to be the one with the updates on his life. So please stop making changes.
Many Thanks,
Susette Ashley Garrett/aka Mrs. Angelo Moore
( Trubarbie ( talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
Thank you for the backup help on articles such as Aubrey O'Day and Sophia Bush. I know that you did not decide to watch these articles just to help me out per say, but to rather keep them clean, but the additional help is appreciated. These vandals and other unhelpful or unsourced (or both types of) additions wear me down. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If you really, really have a problem with this Batman list, then I suppose that the same can be said about the one about James Bond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_considered_for_the_James_Bond_character
TMC1982 ( talk) 11:48 p.m., 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the second email to you about Angelo Moore. Please stop removing the information on his page. I read the Biographies of living person page and the things on his page are relevant and verifiable. He asked for those things to be on his page, due to the fact that many of his songs have to do with marriage, his child, and what makes him him. His fans know him for those things. So that would make the things you continue to delete important to the article. Angelo checked his page because someone stated that the information had been removed once again by you. My next step is to report this to the Biographies of living persons notice board if you do not stop. Yes, I am his ex-spouse that is working with him and his management company to make sure inforamtion about him is correct. I check with Angelo before anything goes up or comes down from his page. If need be I will have Mr. Moore contact wikipedia himself in the event this email is not enough for you to stop making edits to his page.
Many Thanks,
Susette Ashley Garrett- Moore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trubarbie ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! Couldn't help but notice the edit you made to this artical. Hate to seem rude, but I had just re-edited that particular bit back in after an unregistered user deleted it without comment! I'm not as experienced with wiki as yourself. I'm curious why the edit was counted as cleanup? Many thanks :) OutrageousBenedict ( talk) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip ( talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, WeKinglyPigs.com has been used for a few years now for info on Playboy Playmates. Most of the information comes directly from the issues of the magazine themselves. The woman who runs the site works in the library at the University of Chicago. See WP:P* under the useful links section. Dismas| (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You removed it again with no discussion in the talk page. But you did have a one line edit summary. Removing it entirely is wrong. I will work on it to address your concerns. Specifically, I will remove most of the description like a man's cock in her vagina doggie style, and the like. One scene won an award so some detail is necessary but will be done tastefully. G314X ( talk) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello HB. Just wanted to ask if you used to use this same name 'Hullaballoo' to post on the discussion forums in tennis.com a while back. I was a poster there too but have not posted in a long long while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.229.211 ( talk) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
First off HB, thanks for monitoring the very controversial Wikipedia entry for Dimitri The Lover. My name is Shawn and I am his Manager. Please note that when I beefed up Dimitri's entry with additional information, I was fair and DID NOT remove anything that was derogatory, even though much of it is inflammatory and borderline defamatory. I only removed gross innacuracies and reworded misleading sentences. I have provided references for all additions. I may do a bit more rewording for grammar and sentence structure (I'm a real stickler for that) and may also add in more content. My IP Address is static and if you see anything from it please know that it is me. Also, I sometimes use internet cafes, so if any other edits that seem reasonable are made from other IP's and I have noted them to be made by myself, then please provide lattitude. You can see that I have undone some vandalism in the past. I would appreciate you helping us keep a keen eye on this most controversial BLP to ensure no further vandalism. We are in the post-production phase of a Hollywood documentary about Dimitri The Lover, word is slowly leaking out about the "voicemails" being, let's just say, not what they seem, and expect a lot of traffic to this Wikipedia entry. If you need to get in touch with me personally, please go to www.dimitrithelover.com and use our contact, noting that it is for me. I prefer not giving out my direct email here. Thanks once again for being vigilant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 ( talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I am quite new to editing on wikipedia but I know and understand how to cite references. I would like to understand why you keep removing the content thats been put up in the past. Especially when a lot of it has to do with movies
that he has been a part of that are plainly referenced on imdb.com. If you consider that site not to be reputable then please let me know of a better site than that one because I can't think of any other. Other major hollywood personalities
have used imdb.com for sourcing. It is wasting my time and yours to keep taking it down and putting it up again.
Julietamyor
Julietamyor ( talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The CMT and Rolling Stone listings are only directories. I haven't found anything on CMT or Lyric Street that even announced the release of this album; albums by notable acts aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to try and do what Wiki says, talk this through and assume good faith on everyone’s part. This picture is NOT Deanna Brooks. I've known of Deanna Brooks for years, I've exchanged emails with her, I'm a friend on hers on Myspace and Facebook and I can tell you with absolute certainty...the picture is NOT her. I contacted the person who posted it and told him the exact same thing I'm telling you. You can check out her official website, her Myspace page, her Facebook page, her Twitter page, her IMDB entry or just Google her. The women in this picture is very tanned, Deanna Brooks is fair skinned, always has been, the women pictured has breast implants, Deanna Brooks does not. What is the purpose of constantly adding a photo which is NOT her, why continue to make her entry so glaringly inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 ( talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
User talk:71.235.38.171 - Schrandit ( talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm at 3RR! Looks like you're going to have to find yourself a partner soon...maybe User:Tide rolls is around. Good luck, Drmies ( talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Fixed the article, added a source to confirm my edits. Cheers!
Some of your edits are being discussed here: [28] I thought I should alert you just in case you didn't see them on your own so that you would have an opportunity to respond as well. Hope all is well! ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the IMDb reference in this article - Three-Five-Zero-Zero - acceptable IYHO? Thanks 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
How about here: Jerry_Springer:_The_Opera? 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
And here: Three Mile Island (ref 15)? 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Here? Escape to Witch Mountain (1975 film) 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was following up on the message I left a few days ago and still did not see a detailed response to it. I would really like to fix the page so that it is acceptable by Wikipedia standards and would really appreciate some detailed feedback. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for the improved reference on Clint Catalyst! As a result, I spent some more time working on the paragraph (for example, I noticed Darren Stein's name was misspelled). I see you're pretty much a Wiki black-belt, so I hope you think I've done a good job. Thanks again for looking out for me! Feather Jonah ( talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you removed alot of content from Ruth Rosen, perhaps an AfD is in order? abc518 ( talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don not understand why we can not use her real name. Several porn actresses have their real names in the articles, like Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress). It was even sourced. Glumpbaar ( talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
How does who she previously dated hold no encyclopedic significance? I've seen plenty of GAs. It's not gossip either as it's clearly sourced. I'd also like to remind you of the 3RR rule. -- Jimbo [online] 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'd appreciate you leaving the information about Nina Carter's cameo in American Werewolf in London in her article. The information is accurate, it's not contentious, it's not BLP and you keep removing it without leaving notes. If you refuse to desist, I would at least like your guidance on how we can arrive at a mutually acceptable scenario, rather than the unilateral removal of accurate information? Much obliged! 17.22 28 Sep 09 (BST)
Your point: 'since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer'. I have got a single clue what you're alluding to here. However, there's no explanantion as to how why details about a film cameo bear on Ms Carter's life. It is relevant to her career though, and accurate, and her cameo is now mentioned solely as being in the film, without the copy that seems to so aggrieve your sensibilities. Your style of editing seems to others to be overly fussy but I'm hoping that the current article meets with your exacting standards.
Please leave it alone now. Thanks. 20:24 BST 28/9/09
I didn't add the information. 22.24 BST 28/9/09.
I call them 'reverting vandalism'. 09.11 BST 29/9.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.175 ( talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I imagine it will get you blocked also, am I right? 80.229.187.175 22.40 BST 29/9/09
Edit warring will get you blocked, yes. Save the inarticulate and thinly veiled threats for someone who cares for your opinion. Thanks for putting the citation up though! 80.229.187.175 13.38 BST 30/9/09
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tamara Lee has been removed. It was removed by Garion96 with the following edit summary '(rm prod, not sure about this one)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Garion96 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I opened a discussion here -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi HW - I think the issue on Debra Winger goes beyond sourcing - see my comment on Talk:Debra Winger and see if you agree or disagree and perhaps we can get a dialog going rather than what's been happening. Thanks! Tvoz/ talk 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So a story in the two major newspapers and from the national broadcaster in a country where public figures will sue you ( and done so in the past ) for getting the slightest thing wrong when reporting on them is not RS .Good Grief . Garda40 ( talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a direct recreation (I think word-for-word, but as I'm not an admin I can't see the text of the deleted version) of an article The Ogdens which was deleted.
The article was created, discussed at length for a week, and then deleted on the 18th Sept. On the 24th, it was recreated and speedily deleted:
I am curious as to why you have declined a speedy deletion, as this is an article which was decided should not be in Wikipedia, and from what I can see there is no difference between the current article and the deleted version.
I thought I would ask you before I put this up for deletion again, in case you were not aware of the recent history of this article (did you read the AfD discussion before removing the Speedy Delete notice, for example?)
I will give you a little while to respond, but by tonight if I have not heard from you, I will proceed to put this up for deletion again.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see four reverts, either by you or Krakatoa. The last version of the article that you saved makes no mention of the Polanski issue at all. Do you think it deserves no coverage in the article? Due to some recent improvements, the current version seems more neutral. So all in all, there no longer is a huge problem. I'm not seeing either edit warring or BLP at the moment, except perhaps there are too many references for people being annoyed at Applebaum over the Polanski thing, and this could be slightly over the top. If you still have reservations, maybe they can be explored on the article talk, and the 3RR report could be closed. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing "uncivil" or "intellectually dishonest" about warning someone about deleting content without a valid rationale, as I explained politely in that post, which had nothing to do with mere "disagreement" with your edit. Which part of my post do you disagree with? That you're not supposed to delete content because it is badly formatted or written? That's true. That three people opined that that material should remain, including one who offered Third Opinion as part of a request I made to address your concerns? That is also true. If you wanted to refute this, and continue to contest that material's inclusion, then you what you should do is start a consensus discussion on the Talk Page, and not engage in edit warring by removing it again after others decided it should remain. What is actually uncivil and intellectually dishonest is removing my warning to you and falsely labeling it vandalism with the Edit Summuary "rvv". I suggest you not make false accusations of vandalism, since at this point, you should know that a warning against content removal, even if you feel it is unwarranted, does not constitute vandalism. Nightscream ( talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your reversion edit of my edit of Stuart Broad, as you clearly had not read the reference at the end of the sentence, which confirms both his existing and former girl friends. Before suggesting anything is "gossip" check the references first. Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Provide the source that you believe the user has copied from. You are crossing 3RR. If there are so many sources then provide at least one. warrior 4321 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Now restored and written in order not to violate wiki policies on copyright. Can I suggest that in future if you do not agree with a particular piece of information in an article that you try to challenge that properly rather than get rid of the whole article. We can all go around deleting everything we don't like, but it's not particularly productive. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Other references. I cannot reference directly into the game (world of warcraft). I'll include other references. Do you have any ideas on this? Michaelbarreto ( talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out that 18c included the phrase "... but you disagree with them even after they present their rationale ...". I took that to imply that I still wanted to have a block installed, and was questioning whether I would do so unilaterally, which I would not. Certainly if I came to the conclusion that discussion on ANI would be pointless, I'd drop it before posting there.— Kww( talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I should have chosen a better source. It turns out that Chickpedia is a user editable source, not reliable. The idea that she changed her name is not that contentious. She has mentioned so in an interview and the last name of her mother is listed on multiple news releases. I added the birthname again using IMDb as a source. Stillwaterising ( talk) 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
She's back. Now that the articles have been semi-protected, she's editing them under her own account, so at least we can show that all the edits are from the same person. Care to lend a hand with the reverts, and/or to make her see reason? -- Zsero ( talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a follow-up on your edit summary when you removed the first G12 speedy tag on the above: While the source was published in 1910, it's the date of the death of the author that is relevant, and as far as I could ascertain, George Kemp Ward passed away in 1937, leaving his works under copyright for a few more years. I have therefore deleted the article accordingly. Cheers, MLauba ( talk) 10:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI. You did not address the "notability" issue in your post. Perhaps, the lack of notability is the strongest reason for deletion. (Even stronger than the absence of a single reliable source?) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Budania#Budania —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please add you reasons for why you did this on the talk page Talk:Sal the Stockbroker I requested a review of it, you should add why you think it should be redirected. 98.117.40.154 ( talk) 17:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It can be seen here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sal the Stockbroker 98.117.40.154 ( talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
What am I not understanding correctly?
I placed a list of references to print publications in which Dontella Diamani appeared. These were removed, citing "unrefereced laundry list, primary sources at best, not generally included."
Dontatella Diamani is an 80s Italian sex symbol and has appeared in numerous centerfolds. To support that claim I thought the idea was to provide sources, including primary sources, and I supplied a few, down to specific page numbers. Why is it important to censor the fact that she has appeared in pictorals? WHy is it important to remove a pictoral section reference? That would only detract from her fame as a 70s-80s Italian sex symbol, would it not? Mouseydung ( talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You just deleted an entry I made on the George Michael article on the basis that you believed it was "non-constructive". That is a matter of personal point of view as many parts of the article could be considered to be non-constructive to the over all article. Please explain further on the George Michael discussion page before making arbitrarily deletions. Thank you. Artemisboy ( talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there..i noticed you reverted my addition to the article...as it being non-reliable sources...if so..what sources would be reliable and allowed..ancestry.com and the US census websites...??..the website that is sued seems to be the only one with the paternal side referenced..and in no doubt have more added to his paternal Martin and morales maternal sid when the information is available..the reference that is used for his Corsican great-4 grandfather is still used there which wasnt deleted..although it seems to have enough detail on the negorni side rearched..anyway..give me your views..and ill try to wearch for another website that gives the same info which isnt user edited..although this 'Negroni family tree' is only edited by ONE person..not many...in the website it says he sues the us census and ancestry.com to research the family. ..maybe better to discuss this on the talk page to get further opinions on this..thankyou. Puertorico1 ( talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
ohh.thanks, the only family members mentioned in the news and books are his parents and his grandmother who he talks about as being an influence..further than that, i cant find. .maybe that small amount can be added then, since there are many people like bill gates, John Mccain etc, ancestry which is documented also in their article by another website, although not in a tree like table. anyway..does that mean if he was dead that this would be ok to use this as a source.? Puertorico1 ( talk) 23:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This report may interest you. It seems to be related to Sal the Stockbroker. On an unrelated note, you should consider archiving your talk page as it's takes several seconds to load. Regards. — ξ xplicit 06:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Which BLP guidelines does that material fail? Nightscream ( talk) 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. One of the articles you tagged for proposed deletion, Leanni Lei, was contested after deletion. I undeleted the article and nominated it for deletion quoting your prod rationale. Just thought I would let you know. NW ( Talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has been reported to the Help discussion page regarding several items. I request to have a discussion with you regarding your questionable edits, changes and undos to the Amy Grant page, including one that undid much of my work. I also call into question your admittance regarding following Wikipedia policy (above), hounding from other editors for your past actions and unpredictable and erratic behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds)
This is another complaint against Wolfowitz. This volunteer has repeatedly made destructive and erratic changes to a popular wiki page though he/she apparently has no other purpose or reason than to exert his own influence and will on content. Wolfowitz's misguided efforts are hurting wikipedia and the valuable contributions of editors who work hard to make wikipedia a positive environment where collective efforts create good content. Dougmac7 ( talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds)
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt ( talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo!-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know somebody pasted the following (within the quotes) on my talk page -- "What do you mean by this? YOu wrote that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz deserves an award for being a "great watchdog" on wikipedia. Yet, several people have written major complaints about his destructive changes to pages that he has no connection to? Please explain why you are the only one who thinks he is doing good work. He himself wrote in his bio page that many people hounded him about his erratic changes to pages. Why is he apparently targeting my work? I have worked on two pages in the past 2 weeks- and he continually undoes my work without giving any explanation and without discussing though I specifically ask people to discuss before changing the content."
And then they didn't sign it. Generally I remember that your contributions to Dana Delany and Gerald Celente were positive and constructive, and I appreciate your advice and help with both of those articles. I also appreciate that you weeded out poorly sourced stuff, and dubious references, and alerted me about how some sources were bogus (and I agree with you, and I don't use them any more). So, just letting you know I appreciate your work! -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing how he meets notability. I've found the same sources as you now, but all I'm seeing is a two-sentence mention in a book on Jeopardy! and incidental coverage following his Jeopardy! win. Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I did a Courtesy Blank on Thunder Collins.
I did not intentionally mean to "attack" him and apologize that it came off that way.
I searched for a page for him on Wikipedia and found none, so decided to start one. The only recent info that I had was the current info about his situation.
I assumed that others would come along and add to his biography, but instead it was viewed as an attack on the person, which it wasn't.
It seems that I have come under attack by a few users on my posts, but I have made posts without logging in previously that were not viewed as spam.
It's weird that once I joined and started posting as a logged in user, I became a target.
I subscribe to a Celeb/News Blog and when info comes through the Feed, I check Wikipedia to see if it has already been posted and provide a Source.
Blogs as sources are allowed from what I have read in the policies. It would be unfair for a Source to have to be a big name news site.
If my source was a particular blog, then that is what I cite.
I've also noticed that many times Users will delete my source, but keep the news from that source reported. This is not how I understood Wikipedia to work. Anything that I post deserves to have a source added to it. So, if a blog is my source, why should I not give them credit for it.
According to the Guidelines that I have read, we are first to assume that the Editor is editing in Good Faith. I have been, but many have simply attacked me as a spammer without considering that I provided valid info on a topic.
Please talk with me before the threats of Blocking me. I am not a spammer, just an eager User. Now, that I have joined and started posting under my User name, I have seen the True Colors of Wikipedia. My anonymous posts are still untouched somehow, but they also link to various blogs.
Please advise if I should begin posting anonymously again, since I did not have these sorts of issues before. My content and sources were considered valid then and should be considered valid now.
Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess my main concern here is that many of the posts themselves were not deleted, so it appears that the CONTENT was acceptable. No problem though, it appears that Wikipedia doesn't consider "small" sources as valid sources which is ashame. Many times, blogs, etc., have new info before it even hits news sources. No prob, I guess I'll keep posting, but will only give "news" sites despite the fact that it may not have come from them. Whatever. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Niac7 (
talk •
contribs)
17:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I also see that you put the Thunder Collins back up. I Created that article and you said it was an attack. So now, I went in to do a Courtesy Blank and it is back up. Once again, you have kept the content, but you have a problem with my sources. This is very hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the articles themselves looked different to the ones on Wikipedia on the saints. On AllExperts.com I'm sure I've seen before articles where they have one person just writing something out, is this right? - Yorkshirian ( talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Priscila Herig -- Zsero ( talk) 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the revision you made for Ann-Margret 15 minutes ago. If you're a confirmed user, can you get a look at the color photograph that someone deleted in 2008? I recall distinctly seeing it in the article before that time. It's such a great picture of her that it should go back in. What copyright issues, if any, were/are at stake? Thanking you in advance for your attention. Photodouble ( talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why you endorsed it. I have provided enough reasons and still you endorsed it. Rovea ( talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
So, basically, are you maintaining that the actress "Louise Germaine" is not the former glamour model born as Tina Reid, who worked under that name and a number of other pseudonyms? Nick Cooper ( talk) 17:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour ( talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) Can you please read Talk:Iman Crosson#Including descriptions of Crosson's videos and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of an objective description of a subject's own prior video as supposedly being spam? (A major part of the subject's notability is the very activity of producing videos.) . . . . . (2) Similar request: please read Talk:Iman Crosson#Including links to Crosson's official websites and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of links to some of subject's own websites as supposedly being spam. Thank you. RCraig09 ( talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you take a look at the previously deleted version? -- Mattinbgn\ talk 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy! Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd again like to thank the many editors and admins who've been dealing with the current vandalism sprees on my user and talk pages and the user/talk pages of other editors, especially those who've themselves become targets of the vandal as a consequence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
For taking on many contentious BLP articles and maintaining your ground when enforcement gets messy, I hereby award you this BLP Barnstar. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 17:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC) |
Yeah, I was uncertain on this one, so I undeleted it because I couldn't really tell from my short search if she was a playmate or not. If not, put a speedy tag on it and I'll delete. Dreadstar ☥ 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you want me to semiprotect it longterm (or indefinitely) ? J.delanoy gabs adds 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
vn-∞ | This user page has been vandalized many, many times. |
Cheers! Outback the koala ( talk) 08:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi HW, I think you have a typo in your recent comment at the gay porn performer AfD. You say that 62 items are sourced to the Adam 2004 directory, then you say 29 items are sourced to the same directory. Should one of those be a different year? (BTW, you might think about archiving some old discussions from this page - it's rather large. :) )
I saw your question, but I have to be off the internet for a few hours and will respond once I get back online. Just wanted to alert you on this as I responded elsewhere on the RfA. cheers. - Spaceman Spiff
I wanna give you some due credit - good job cleaning up that page. MattDredd ( talk) 05:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't miss anything. The link I have to the article isn't one that is available to the passerby as it is to a subscription site. There isn't a requirement that sourcing be available online or a link provided for a reference for it to be valid. I added an abbreviated link to the article that brings up the same page instead of the detailed one. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi established wikipedia editor. I have a question. For example, Glenn Gilberti - his name is spelt wrong here. How do I edit the main heading so that it'll be "Glenn Gilbertti" (with two ts). I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Thanks in advance. Marty2Hotty ( talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hullaballoo... I know Glenn, and he has done interviews and written columns on WrestleZone.com - his last name is spelt Gilbertti. He also has a facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730862806 - that is his real spelling. His name has been spelt incorrectly in news sources because he used to go by his alias "Disco Inferno". Can you guide me through the process of moving the article? Marty2Hotty ( talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Update - I have moved the article to "Glenn Gilbertti" myself after going through the help pages on wikipedia regarding how to move articles. I know this is the correct spelling and it has been confirmed on columns on wrestlezone.com - http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/article/random-thoughts-belts-are-props-part-one-58899 is an example. Thanks again for your help. Marty2Hotty ( talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors whose consensus inspired that debate. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hullaballoo, The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a problem of non-judicial and police cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. is a matter concerningth are human rights and democracy in Europe espacially France and Hungary Best regards
1 -Many people in Paris are reading this discussion page and have pointed out that Hell in a Bucket looked alone to decide. Moreover he has also noticed on another page, I was suspected of creating pages for films that do not exist ????? What this new charge yet?
2 - is it normal, that Hell in a Bucket notifie that "that time is not now" at 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) than the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article ? 3
3 - What do other people think, now that they know that it is not a commemoration page, but the page on The Ophélie Bretnacher case wich is very important in France and Hungary , butnot for you, we have seen ? The problem is really, are you open for other civilisations here in U.S.A ? Or your Wiki in english is it just for american knowledge ?
Raymondnivet (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hullabaloo, I seem to remember your being involved in a WP:NFCC discussion about having book series cover images in articles about the series of books, was there ever a resolution to that question? It was regarding these IFD's, and now the same covers are being put up again, per this reasoning. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please take a look at my reply to your !vote on this AfD? I am concerned by your rationale and another thought also struck me while I replied to you. I think you'd probobly be able to answer my question pretty well. Thanks and happy editting.--v/r - T P 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello HW. I've just blocked an IP who recently edited this article, per User talk:166.205.130.250#December 2009. I do not know if this is a sock, but it is quite unlikely to be a sock of Cubert. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A proposal has been created for WikiProject Saturday Night Live. Please leave comments, and consider joining as a potential project member. Mainly.generic ( talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Learn Spanish you will get the joke, just because you do not speak the language does not mean it is a sujective interpretation. Also there is not a copyright violation. RichardBond ( talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with adding Jesus, John the Baptist or Martin Luther as political dissidents, because they were at best religious dissidents, not political dissidents. Anybody with half a brain today knows that religion and politics are always meant to be separate nowadays, and that adding such examples is the absolute height of impertinence. Plus, there is also room for disagreement about whether Jesus was a dissident, since he clearly thought that the real dissidents were the pharisaic Jews, having ordrered them to render unto Caesar. ADM ( talk) 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that 3/4 of your edits have to do with some type of reverting. Is this a second-hand account of another user that is meant only for reverting ? If it is, I think the account in question should probably be blocked. ADM ( talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You cite as your reason for censoring my post on Mark Lloyd's page that it is "subjective commentary, intended as derogatory." All I did was quote the guy, how is that subjective? And it's what he said, so if there was any intention to be derogatory it was his his, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countervaling ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have two issues:
1. How is a cited reference to a major newspaper considered vandalism?
2. Why would the examiner (sfgate) be blacklisted? I don't understand this....
KermitClown ( talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that is the issue at hand here. Why is a newspaper blacklisted from this particular article? I cna't find anywhere that it was. KermitClown ( talk) 19:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I might as well apply to become an administrator/moderator, as you sir, have zero credibilty in my opinion. Seems you simply blanket categorize things as vandalism if someone does not share your POV. This is true of your characterizations of the Daly article. Seems like you go around and revert edits, like a bull in a china shop and never have any original edits to contribute. KermitClown ( talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with your assessment that notability is asserted, I later found that the entire section that I had marked off-topic was a copyvio and I promptly removed it. What's left is a sub-stub that does not assert anything, and I am unable to find references about Ms. El Nakkady (though the magazine itself gets a lot of ghits), in fact I am not even able to locate any primary sources. Do you think this should go to AfD? -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Despite your revert, please note [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43]. Not only are you somehow not "a neutral editor doing the restore", the title just keeps appearing in edit summaries, as an anchor, etc. This is what I mean, i.e. anyone who critiques him is somehow not neutral and anyone who warns him will have his/her warnings ignored. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for removing the AFD tag from Claudia Costa I checked both the original AFD and the deletion review but did not notice the 2nd AFD. Thanks for adding the tag back in. RP459 ( talk) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you happen to know why did I get a bot message saying that the Nadine Janssen article that apparently I created is scheduled for deletion? I mean I have never started that article. Why would I be getting the message then? Norum 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
How could it be deleted if the MAJORITY said to keep the article? 6 were to keep it, 5 to delete it. So technically that should have been kept. So much for the fairness on Wikipedia. Pathetic. Norum 14:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
the snl archives is a reliable site. It is accurate when detailing a show and a season.
http://snl.jt.org/season.php?i=1975
For example that link right there provides all the episodes, all the cast and the number of times live from... was said. It provides proof with pictures from the episode. The source is credible, by using the archives information we can calculate the number of times live from... was said and give it off to help wikipedias page. It very important, it shows how the cast member has importance in the show. Just like how the best of section the update section, it shows the importance of the cast member in their era. It would greatly help fans just as how the other sections on the page are. I dont understand why the archvies arent a good enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water78 ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You removed the photo attached to the article "Loek van Mil". I shot this photo myself, so there's no copyright infringement. The picture only needs to be reduced to a proper size, I did not know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutfieldAssist ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As a courtesy often overlooked by nominators, which is the most neutral way to post a note about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hudecki (2nd nomination) on the talk pages of the article's editors and particpants of the previous AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a double created article discussed at the BLPN and I am moving the contents and creating a redirect. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Before these deletions, did you consider taking the time to have a look for better sources? I wasn't aware that The Sun was considered an inherently unreliable source either: can you point me to that discussion? While the sourcing could be better, I generally opt for Web-accessible references for new articles because they're easier to verify than offline publications (especially newspapers and magazines). I don't think there's reason to believe that the content in question is actually false, and it forms the basis of the article's notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
One more time: the article content referenced to the Sun article didn't match up with what the Sun article actually said, and what little that was verifiable wasn't encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
does "not match up" with the material added, which said:MODEL Suzanne claims to have the longest legs in Scotland - at a whopping 44 INCHES. ... She even insured them once for a staggering £1million.
Even given the discrepancy of the actual measurement, the actual content of both sections syncs up pretty neatly. Before I take this to a third opinion, care to reconsider the deletion? I'm happy for it to be tagged for better sources, but this was really a baby-with-the-bathwater moment IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Carlsson ... is on record as having the longest legs of any Scottish person, with an inside leg measurement of 36.5 in (93 cm) and an outside measurement of 46.5 in (118 cm). Her legs are insured for 1 million pounds sterling.
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo: I first added "In the Sun" without reference, which was removed by Andrewlp1991 stating appropriately "...If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes..." I then added back including appropriate references, but you removed it again citing andrewlp. What's that about? { Sec906 ( talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
OK, thanks, I shall try to be more careful. Then as for Munchausen By Proxy being a fictional band, I think an appropriate source might be
http://stereogum.com/archives/zooey_deschanel_does_synth_pop_for_the_new_jim_car_040631.html Would you agree? In part, my issue is that the current Wikipedia entry seems to present this as an actual band rather than make it clear this band is fictional. {
Sec906 (
talk)
21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
Reference "...and first single 'In the Sun'..." http://www.mergerecords.com/blog/2009/12/she-him-reveal-volume-two-details/ is the news blog for Merge Records. Although a blog, it is not user editable and is from their own record label's site. Does that not qualify as reliable? Sorry for the hassle, and thanks for your help on this. { Sec906 ( talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
Thanks! { Sec906 ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}
I normally find you to be pretty balanced on AfD's, but in the case of the Cash Prince, I feel you're on a slippery slope. GNG is being used to shoehorn in non-notable people. For example, if my local paper (which passes WP:RS does a profile on the local karate instructor that opened a new school, he passes GNG as you are applying it. It is significant coverage (he is the subject) and the source is reliable and third party. Is that really what you believe the intent of GNG is? Is that where you want Wikipedia to go? My other question is about the criterias for different classes. Have you seen many examples, of a politician that doesn't pass GNG but does pass WP:POLITICIAN? Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a very professional & important Blog for LGBT-in-the-media issues, and that was a article that covered events on the show, not speculation. For now I'll replace the source with one from the Howard Stern show website itself that the article linked to, but how do I get AfterElton counted as "reliable" so I can use it for future referencing?---- occono ( talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Miss Pooja. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pooja (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you want to be snarky with your edit summaries, I won't worry about tip-toeing around. You're being pedantic about the Playboy appearence. She was completely nude, everyone knows it and it was one of their best selling issues. You keep citing BLP.....exactly which part of BLP is the problem? The issue isn't libelous or contentious. She isn't ashamed of it and readily admits it. There is plenty of proof, but the images are copyrighted. What exactly do you think the phrase "posed for Playboy" is supposed to mean? In family friendly RS's, like newspapers, they tend to avoid being overly descriptive of things like what nude photos showed. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there some reason you reverted without comment? Have you read the Talk:Michael_Richards#Consensus_section established on the article's talk page? HesAKramer ( talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That should be good enough for now. Y'all don't come back now, y'hear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wolf, I just reviewed you recent edits to the Marketa Belonoha article. You removed 70% of the text in the article plus a long and carefully compiled list of her work. Most of the text was sourced. You seem to be selective in your deletions as you removed all mention of nudity and left other text even though what you deleted and what you removed were from the same source. This is not proper or neutral editing. Judging from the threads above, it would seem that this kind of selective editing may be a pattern with you. I hope you are able to alter this pattern soon. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone's been adding a "Criticisms" (sic) section, which doesn't follow the BLP guidelines. Could your bot watch the page and revert these edits? ---- IsaacAA ( talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this was just an oversight but in the same you removed the few sources that were listed as references while adding a tag asserting that the article had no references. You also dated that tag September 2007 rather than any current date. -- Banjeboi 08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm really bored of your ill edits. You even delete parts that have proper references on the relevant articles. Now, this is what genuine vandalism is. Understand? Behemoth ( talk) 07:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Talvin DeMachio. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime. Ash ( talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will make citations corrections change tone to be less promotional. I know Grace personally and she used to go by Amy Gilbertson. She was in Miss America and runner up to Miss Iowa. I will site her accomplishments and also correct any inadvertent deceptions on my part. I am NOT a promoter, my name is Jeffrey Fry and am a personal friend of Ms. Sharington and thought her life noteworthy. Of course, I bow to your guidelines as you see fit to implement and thank you for your understanding and consideration. You can find me on LinkedIn and Facebook. I live in Austin, TX (jxf@austin.rr.com) is my email address and I invest and help start ups. Jeteye ( talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Removed info about 3rd person that is not verifiable, incorrect name. Added link to pageant winner.
Jeteye (
talk)
21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jocelyn Wildenstein. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi HW: I think you have a typo (loser instead of closer) in the DrV which could, in theory, be taken poorly. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Would you object to your AN/I report being moved to AN, which is better suited to that kind of discussion? Because there's no specific "incident" to deal with, stuff like that sometimes gets overlooked on AN/I. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The AN report has now scrolled off the board without any action being taken, so I have filed a sockpuppet report here, if you'de like to comment. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up Benjamin Millepied; Wikipedia does not need to resemble Us. — Robert Greer ( talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You commented on a closed discussion, FYI. I reverted your edits/comments. Please take it to RFC/U if the discussion is opened up there. This is to keep everything closed, and everyone calm and to let the discussion either die or go to the appropriate place. Dusti SPEAK!! 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Dusti SPEAK!! 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Dusti SPEAK!! 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Dusti SPEAK!! 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
While it's clear that very little "action" will be taken on this matter, Dusti doesn't get to decide who can or can not have their say. The typical way things are handled at AN/I is that conversation is allowed to go on until it peters out on its own, unless that conversation is total nightmare. While your mileage may vary on "total nightmare", that conversation doesn't even rise to the level of "minor dustup." Best. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I guess you're right. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
...Well, it may have something to do with the incredibly long watchlist I insist on maintaining, but I did:
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work in the background, particularly in keeping crap out of BLPs. When I see your name on my watchlist, I know that's one less mess I have to clean up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
Keep up the good work! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see this draft RFC/U. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been dealt with at ANI, but since it wasn't I'm following up with an RFC/U as suggested. I have told Ash of my intention to file this, for what it's worth. Let me know if you have any comments or additions (feel free to just make changes). I'll submit it in the next day or so, depending on the feedback I receive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You removed Ke$sha's scheduled performance on SNL citing WP:BLP concerns. Can you please participate in the discussion here. [47] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Fixer23 ( talk) 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
On the talk, I proposed stubifying the article and I just wanted to alert you to it to see what you think. Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.
Re. recent additions to Donzaleigh Abernathy which you removed; I spoke to a user in the help channel (at length), and what happened is this;
Donzaleigh ( talk · contribs) added something somewhat promotional and unreferenced, several times. They did not understand Wikipedia policies on WP:BRD etc. They were warned.
Their friend, Madamewus ( talk · contribs), then tried to add exactly the same thing - and was blocked as a sock.
Madamewus came into the IRC help channel, and I explained all about policies etc; they requested an unblock (see their talk page), and they now intend to explain what they would like to add on talk:Donzaleigh Abernathy, and they will provide references.
Therefore, please could you look out for their discussion there, and comment on it. Many thanks, Chzz ► 18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Grace Sharington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Sharington. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- WikHead ( talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Why was Category:American female adult models inappropriate for India Allen? Jason Quinn ( talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hullaballoo: can you list some of the article pages that you think do belong in this category? Tim Pierce ( talk) 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Hullabaloo. I consolidated the separate TFD nominations you created for the DanniGirl navboxes. Since the function and deletion rationale for each one is identical, it seems likely that they will either all be kept or all be deleted. If you think combining them will be a problem for some reason, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I warned you for reverting, meant to hit the ip!! -- Aka042 ( talk) 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
what unreferenced laundry list? don't get so carried away. all of these films are published material and are verifiable sources. you inability to check them out doesn't make it unreferenced. Aditya( talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Although you nominated this category for deletion, the decision was Keep the category (on April 8).
I notice that since then you've removed almost 40 articles from this category. Please could you explain this action? Thanks. MissBeastly 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo.. I'm not seeing how this source is a Wikipedia mirror site. [48]. Any information would be welcome. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 01:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
Hi,
You removed the speedy tag on this with the edit sum "remove speedy, includes credible claim of significance" - but am at a genuine loss to find that in the article - can you elaborate for me. (BTW have taken it to AfD.) Codf1977 ( talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In re this edit [49], are you sure it is not her official website? -- Golbez ( talk) 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, i noticed your edit which added "BLP unsourced" tag to an article that had two references (in the form of external links). Please don't apply the BLP unsourced tag in such cases. You may wish to apply {{ BLP refimprove}} instead. But, i and others are working to address completely unsourced BLP articles under a deadline. Thanks. -- doncram ( talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey again. I thot we had discussion towards some consensus, but i am browsing the April 2010 BLP unreferenced category and come across a new one added by you just now, in this edit. I changed it from "BLP unsourced" to "BLP refimprove" and "nofootnotes". Could you use those two tags instead, and possibly also anything else you want to use to indicate skepticism about IMDB if you wish. But, the article has sources. The sources given as external links are the sources used in creating the article, i believe. So it is not BLP unsourced. The sources are given. Discuss here or at the wt:URBLP page, pls., if you don't agree. -- doncram ( talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nudity in music videos. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in music videos. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You recently removed a citation from this article stating that the linked page ( [55]) is a Wikipedia mirror site. I had thought it might be, but had dismissed that idea since we don't have such an article. But apparently it was speedy deleted as "blatant copyright infringement". Searching on the entire first sentence of the article yields 22 Google results ( [56]), most of which are probably Wikipedia mirrors, but one of which, presumably, is the original source (because if our article was blatant copyright infringement, there had to be a source, and in my experience, 99 times out of 100, if an article is caught as blatant copyright infringement the source is online and some user just copied and pasted it). Do you have any idea which of those search results is not a Wikipedia mirror site? Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 11:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask why you are removing "adult models" categories, stating that they are "inappropriate", from bios of Playmates and Page 3 girls? This edit summary says "category not supported by article text" despite multiple mentions of topless modelling.
I'd also like to encourage you to WP:archive old sections of this talk page, as it takes a long time to load. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Audrey Kitching. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Kitching. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a spamlink since it holds scene-by-scene information on the biggest market of the adult industry - online media - in the same way IAFD etc hold similar information for offline media (DVD). if you wish to discuss why you are against it there a discussion, including why it holds relevent information, that has been started on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Add to the discussion there including any possible additional or better sources you can find with the same information. NathyWashington ( talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let me get this straight. Individual Playmate articles are being deleted as they are not notable, so as a precautionary measure, we create "List of" articles. Now you're saying we can't create them?!? Tabercil ( talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Good evening Hullabaloo, The article about Hank Skinner is being invaded by a couple of spammers, and already the rule of the 3 reversals should go against them, they have reinserted a link of hate imitating skinner defense site. I am introducing a request of mediation. Adumoul ( talk) 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please tell me (at least a yes or no) if you will be responding meaningfully on the Talk page to Issues 1-10+ at Talk:Lisa Lavie#Troubling deletions. RCraig09 ( talk) 03:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I added that Daisy's natural breast size was 32B. The source is from her own hand-written bio sheet that you can see at the bottom of the cited url. I also thought the video interview on that page would be useful as an external link to show her personality by how she answered a few questions. That link was removed when I first added it. I wasn't logged in at the time. I respectfully request that this not be considered spam. I think it is a good resource to learn more about the person. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinG123 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello I am just wondering as to why you deleted my contribution as "unsourced gossip". I'ts not "unsourced", infact I can supply many magazine articles, pictures and websites to confirm this. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my question and supply me a way to have these reposted so they corallate with other multimedia publications. I recently donated to wikipedia in quite a large sum and are in no way deliberatly vandalizing pages or the integrity of this site, as a moderator im hoping you can understand where I am coming from. I hope to resolve this issue with you soon, if not to contact wikipedia directly and its owners. thank you
scott storch -scst2890 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scst2890 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Just giving you a heads-up that a large number of images have been pulled from Commons that are sexual in nature, and a number of them were later found to have been in use. I'm contacting you as you're one of the more active editors on the adult stuff here. If you could watch for red-links and give me a heads up on any that you see so I can see about restoring it, I'd appreciate it. Tabercil ( talk) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes we disagree at AFDs... sometimes we agree completely. I've made some decent steps toward improving Anya Verkhovskaya. Care to assist? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Rochelle Loewen:
I have a copyright to this photo, please do not delete it. Maybe you can help me revise it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cdheinz (
talk •
contribs)
01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
What was wrong about the way I referenced? But if it makes the article any better I'm with you mate. Dhulfiqar 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver ( talk • contribs)
The office space is based off shorts that appeared on the show. So it should count towards the section. Why doesnt it? Water78 ( talk)
Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Since I didn't know what to think of the rational for your removal of that paragraph in this edit to Nastassja Kinski, I asked for instruction on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nastassja_Kinski. I just though to drop you a note. Debresser ( talk) 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Breanne Benson and hereby inform you about this as suggested in the PROD guide. I have added my reasons on the related talk page. Although you are obviously a highly active deletionist, I hope that you are fair enough not to straight push for an AfD especially as I have little experience here so far but followed Wikipedia:BB by creating this article of which relevance I am convinced. Naturally I will try to improve it in style and content if possible but that can't be done by just me alone and within a few days. I respectfully hope you get my point and that I am not here for fighting.
Testales ( talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Trent Franks. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not my fault that moron is vandalizing the Sun page over and over again. What do you expect me to do, have him keep messing up the page for eternity?? The things that I do is not the problem, in fact vandalizing is just as bad as sending personal attacks. I'm sorry, alright, but you need to talk to that IP user and if you are an admin, block him for life. If not, find somebody and I'm sure there will be consequences sent to that IP user.
Xavier ( talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)MR.Texan281
Thanks for removing that allusion to her previous romances. I should have done it myself rather than just clarified the date, but still being somewhat new, I was gutless. It was a throwaway line in a fairly long article, and it had no flesh to it as to what happened or when.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. You're much more knowledgeable about this site than I could ever fathom being, so I hope that you please will note that I'm asking a question over an edit you made that I don't understand. In other words, I did not revert the edit you made a moment ago to Clint Catalyst's page because I have no desire in engaging in some silly "edit war"; on the contrary, I am contacting you in hopes that it's a mistake I will not make again on another page.
What confuses me is: when you removed the information I added in to the Andy Warhol section with the explanation "unsourced" and "citebreaking," I wonder if it's possible that I listed the reference incorrectly (?), because the article not only states the information I added; there's an accompanying photograph of Catalyst with the juxtaposition between Mick Jagger and him. I noticed this when editing Cory Kennedy's page (of whom the source also contains a photograph of her with her "paired likeness"), and made sure to re-phrase the information so that I wasn't plagiarizing it.
Again, I hope I've made it clear that I'm simply trying to learn. I intend no disrespect. Thank you!
Shellacious ( talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved this content from the Palance article to the 65th Academy Awards article to avoid redundancy and undue weight in the two biographies. Is it your position that the affair deserves no coverage in Wikipedia despite being covered in many reliable sources, or have you other plans for it? Best, 86.45.130.146 ( talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to remind you that you were at 3RR there.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi You reverted my changes on Jenny McCarthy without engaging that article's talk section relevant to the edits. I created the talk section well in advance about the edits in order to discuss them. Your revision says "rv BLP violaton/issues", but on the BLP page the three core goals are
Generally, descriptions of Ms. McCarthy as an adult model are more neutral than calling her a model, for the reasons discussed on her article's talk page in the section I created. That characterization is also verifiable. Can you please explain how my edits violate these goals or any of the specific guidelines on BLP? Otherwise I will re-edit the article. I encourage you to respond on the Jenny McCarthy talk page where I have a section for this. Thank you. DGGenuine ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Subtrivial" isn't a word. 98.166.109.81 ( talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The English language has a surfeit of words you could use instead. Try trifling, picayune, insignificant, nugatory, or niggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.246.245 ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you reverted my addition of the BLP IMDB-only refimprove tag to the Anu Agarwal article. Of course it would be ideal to include independent sources, but at the very least the IMDB link verifies that the individual exists and that she in an Indian actress. The IMDB BLP template I used puts the article into the following categories:All articles lacking sources, Articles lacking reliable references from June 2010, Articles sourced by IMDB, and BLP articles lacking sources. As there is concensus to use these tags to separate the articles that only reference IMDB from those that have no links for verification whatsoever as part of this project, could you advise whether you have an issue with the template in general, or if there is an issue with its use in this particular instance? -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you deleted some information off the personal life section of Ian Erix. I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia accurate and factual but in this case the information which you are referring to as gossip has been substantiated in television interviews by both parties and has been reported on by magazines, newspapers and the like numerous times. There have evem been pubic statements released by the artists involved ant there publicists so I am un-doing your revision for these resasons. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please leave this Wikipedia entry as it is. Thank you kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftlists123 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't get into an editing war with me son. You won't win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.232.230 ( talk) 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I feel you're going way over the line in using a talk page and edit summary to accuse another editor (not me) of vandalism when everyone is doing their best to improve a collective work. Could you do me a favour and check over WP:AGF again?-- Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey there.
This is kinda complicated. First off, User:AnneBank is not one of the Barbi Twins nor an official representative for them. Just wanna make that clear.
I've been working with the Twins since November on a fairly regular basis on explaining Wikipedia and how it works, as well as how we can properly assure the accuracy of their biography. So here's the sticky part: that edit about Sia being rumored to be gay from E True Hollywood story is one that they want included. They took a part in the production of that documentary, and made a point to have it included.
Now, obviously we can't just include the information as worded, and we're not one to drive rumors. I'm asking, in your opinion, is there a way that you can see to make this inclusive material? I recuse my own opinion on the matter since I'm just serving as the middle-man, so I'd appreciate your opinion so it can be passed along in the explanation of yes or no.
Thanks for your time! Keegan ( talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you have been given a hard time by a contributor to Chris Noth. You have my every support. I had a particularly nasty and unprovoked run in with this individual a couple of months ago. He/she is a raw beginner who insults mature, regular editors and mainly resorts to righteous indignation in defence of his/her behaviour. I may be completely wrong, and I hope I am, but I also had a suspicion at the time that there may be some socketry involved-- Kudpung ( talk) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The In use template is up. Please respect it. Please revert yourself. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Not fuelling, but determined not to allow WP:GAME to become a sanctuary. Kudpung ( talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
stop being such a cockass
gray 4 mayor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebugeja ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I figured that there was something obvious that I was missing and that removing it again would be the safe option plus would trigger someone to sort of tie it all together. In the end, there's nothing to tie together. Dismas| (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
While it's an amusing "theory" and it's nice to see even a cite for it, it's perhaps in bad taste to bring it up in AfDs as an accusation against those making apparently poor keep arguments, I think. For that matter, the tenor of your other comments in at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards (where I tend to agree with you and the nom that notability is not established, etc.) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Jordan is questionable. Just a thought, no reply needed. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you possibly give your opinion on this debate Talk:Melissa-Ashley#Un-encyclopedic_Content ? Thanks... Valrith ( talk) 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Can you please provide reason as to why you undid the changes on Joe Francis' wikipedia page when reliable sources were provided? Thank you AEB1275 ( talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I personally feel that the Rubashkin trial is an important part of Reade's story. How would you suggest the story should be told? Im surprised you removed the whole section. Lower458 ( talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Saw now Lower458 ( talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me run this by you, would this be acceptable according to BLP rules?
On June 21 2010, Judge Reade sentenced former Agriprocessors CEO Sholom Rubashkin, a first time offender, to 27 years in prison for fraud. [1] The "stiff" sentence was unusual in recent history of financial crimes [2] [3], and was more than the sentence prosecutors had requested, 25 years. [4] prompting complaints from the Orthodox Jewish community that Mr. Rubashkin was singled out and treated unfairly by Judge Reade. [5]
Lower458 ( talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See what I updated at Reade page. I think it is pretty good and within rules.
Removed references to his age and first-time-offender.
BTW, it is a fact that the OJ community was very outspoken re the sentence, but it was not covered in any credible media as of yet. Maybe in the future.
Thanks for coaching me here.
00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 ( talk • contribs)
Alright. Maybe what Im trying to say, and I am, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lower458 ( talk) 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Do an SPI on 70.19.231.165 ? -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm leaving an identical message for all the parties involved in the edit war (Dekkapai, MichaelQSchmidt, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) on this article advising them to take their disagreements on the notability of the nudity in the film to the talk page. All parties involved appear to have valid points so I'm not singling anyone out for possible WP:3RR violations. In the interim, I'm locking the page as is for 72 hours - hopefully by the time the block expires we might have some form of consensus. Remember, the question (as I understand it) is whether the nudity in this film was notable in and of itself. If it is not, then might the information about it be useful elsewhere - say in Nudity in film as expanded details about the 70s. Tabercil ( talk) 12:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
...this diff. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you reverted a couple of this user additions to sport articles about these awards. Like you, I feel this is spammy and believe if the user can't find third party coverage of this, then it should be removed. To be honest, the fact that this user's body of work is adding this to countless articles is most bothersome to me (just look at the user contributions). I went ahead and spent some time doing mass reversions, but met some resistance from other users (see [58], [59]).
I'm wondering what your thoughts are. Should this be taken to wp:ani? It seems like a rather gray-ish area. I know sports pretty okay and have never heard of this organization or these awards, and all signs show that it's a borderline notable organization
Thank you for your time. If you have no desire to get involved, I understand. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of extreme urgency, will you please archive at least 90% of this page. I can recommend the use of the MiszaBot. OK, disk space is cheap these days but there is still no need for every message to gobble up 300k bytes on Wikipedia's servers. More importantly, please spare a thought for users with slow connections or creaky old browsers - why should they have to deal with such a ridiculously large page? — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks.
Hi, I don't know if you've noticed but, along with at least four other editors, I've been trying to prevent a fellow anonymous user ( 92.28.129.178 ( talk · contribs) 89.240.160.15 ( talk · contribs)) blanking, and arguably vandalising, two pages. Could you perhaps look again at this [60] reversion? -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 23:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [61] Dugnad ( talk) 09:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you think what was removed in your edits to Dignity (album) was original research? The background section discusses events that happened and the composition section discusses songs that reference them. That is far from OR. – Chase ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kascha. Since you had some involvement with the Kascha redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer ( talk) 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that the AfD discussion on Virginia Gentlemen is underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Gentlemen; could use your input. - Tjarrett ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to understand your reasoning in reverting my edit. LIGHTS full legal name is hardly unconstructive. Pick just about any celebrity on Wikipedia and you will see their full legal name. This is important due to confusion that LIGHTS is a stage name. Her full name has three unique sources in the article. Nblsavage ( talk) 22:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"though she's changed her name to Lights Valerie Poxleitner"
Barring legal documents, what type of source is sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblsavage ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing the revision. I am not sure why the user was so savage in the edit summary. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the BLP rule preventing the Rocco Siffredi article from disclosing that Siffredi has genital herpes? He admits this fact publicly, at it is relevant to his career as a sexual performer. Thanks! -- Stybn ( talk) 08:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In the AfD for Stephano_Barberis your !vote is being discussed at DrV [62]. Any clarification from you would be helpful. Hobit ( talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think if you revisit your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination) you might find your tone problematic and unproductive. Incidentally, I missed seeing that AfD while it was open and would have been inclined to add a comment in favor of deletion had I caught it. No reply needed. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 03:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi HW. Please accept my sincere apology regarding the notice I previously posted in this space (which you have already removed). I was operating under the mistaken belief that you had added the text in question, rather than removed it. Clearly your edit was correct, and I should have been more careful. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed this message an IP editor left on another IP's talk page, and tracked it back to the edit he was referring to. Is there consensus that Ask.com is not reliable under WP:RS? I only found one brief discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and there was some disagreement on it. What's your view? Nightscream ( talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to add information to the 'lingerie line' section of Caprice's page as it is currently very short and does not reflect the last four and a half years that she has spent building her business. All info is accurate and verifiable. It is not intended to have a promotional tone, merely to reflect the growth of the business over several years and supply up-to-date information to the public about Caprice's shift from model to entrepreneur and the growth of her business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura154154 ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be a good idea to add a protection policy to Saturday Night Live, i have noticed an increase of vandalism on the front page of the show. Possibly semi-protection would be best, what are your thoughts?
Water78 ( talk) 18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I had the same thought about Ed Cox and David Eisenhower's articles - I was just going over there to see how they're worded when I saw your comment on the noticeboard! Well said. Tvoz/ talk 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Curious as to what claim of significance you noticed... As an aside, kinda ironic, based on comments here, that you're removing CSD tags. Lionel ( talk) 05:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw this. It appears that the subject "scrubbed" her website. I wil try to find a cite. Bearian ( talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm really confused as to why you've gone after my edits so strongly. Cassandra Clare is absolutely notable for her Fan Fiction, it's how she became a published author in the first place. As far as I know this has never been disputed before. I've reverted the majority of your changes and added a boatload of published sources. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss about this page? I'd be happy to clarify anything else amiss. Infoaddict1 ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you've added the second BLP tag, without clarifying why you think my Lexus Nexus sources are "phony", I've put in a request for editor assistance & mediation. If you have the time to tell me why you believe specific sources are suspect, I would appreciate it. Most all the pages I've sourced are publicly available, and I can provide copies of each article if you don't have access. Thanks! Infoaddict1 ( talk) 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a content dispute at this article and I'd like to see if an agreement can be reached. Since you are a recent contributor to the article, I'd like to ask if you wish to give your opinion on the matter. I'm not involved in the article myself, I'm only interested in trying to bring everyone to a discussion. If you're interested, please comment at this thread, thank you. -- Atama 頭 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Veronika Zemanová, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm willing to be corrected and to see the image deleted if policy requires, but you removed a non-free image from Cocteau Twins with the edit summary "non-free image in BLP infobox". An article about a band is not a BLP. I restored the image but am bringing it to your attention in good faith in case the relevant policy is wider than stated in your edit summary. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious to know precisely how the image I uploaded for Jeanine Mason fails fair use. Although I acknowledge you seem to be quite a stickler-- when it suits you, at least, excuse me for reading most of your talk page --you seem to have very nonchalantly removed this picture, despite it being from a promotional package and therefore clearly valid under fair use. Please explicate. (Also, congratulations: editing your talk page slows my computer to almost hilarious speeds.) Andrew Hsieh, Random Wikian 07:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What did you do to piss this temporary editor off? Drmies ( talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Your deletion explanation was a bit too brief, IMO: "patently invalid rationale provided." The image did have a rationale stated, although short, yet to the point. However, it does not deserve a rapid, almost bot-like, re-deletion without some due consideration.
Part of the rationale for the image was given:
The man is 89 years old and supposedly not in good health. Therefore, it seems reasonable, if not logical, that it meets one of the "acceptable uses" of a non-free image for a BLP such as #8, since both people were were discussed within the article, mostly during their career, it supports an acceptable usage with obvious relevance:
Since you're apparently relying on the reason why it might be "unacceptable," as in #1, I was using the clearly stated "exception" to that rule:
So I agree to some minds the decision here could be based on a coin toss, as the image could be justified as acceptable or not. But I personally don't think the BLP, especially an important one in the entertainment industry, warrants a brusque summary only. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just expanded and referenced this article so this is just a historical note, but you removed an addition about her hosting a comedy night, stating "unreferenced addition to blp". Sure, it was unsourced, but it wasn't likely to be controversial and a look in Google News for "Jenny Slate" AND "Big Terrific" would have very quickly shown that it was correct. Reverting all unsourced additions keeps articles "pure", but it also keep them from developing, which some quick fact checking would avoid. Fences& Windows 00:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
As an established user I definitely trust your knowledge and good faith, but there's still a bit of a problem here. Even if the subject is notable, the article, as it was written, definitely did not indicate that it is, or why. Furthermore, as an unsourced BLP, it would be subject to WP:PRODBLP even if undeleted. I'm not seeing any versions of the article in its history that address either of these problems. Lastly, the article contained so little information that if it were recreated in a manner that addressed these issues, it would be virtually just as easy to remake from scratch as from the scant information this article contained. I hope this makes sense to you. If I'm missing something, let me know. - Vianello ( Talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
G12, yet. Have you seen the deletion record? I was gonna PROD based on the assertion of significance-- national level board. You got in ahead of me with a G12. Will see what happens. I do wish the campaign mangers would read up on WP:politician before putting themselves through the aggravation. cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Point taken but it did sound strange the way it was phrased. Dismas| (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I explained the fair use rationale to Betacommandbot already. The man's career ended in 1974. There is a limit to how far one can go to attempt to illustrate how a man appeared during the relevant period of his life, especially when that period is over 35 years gone. Summary removal of the image without even trying to contact the editors of the page does not help fix the issue. DarkAudit ( talk) 05:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Hustler magazine as a source please. Tabercil ( talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This edit by an anonymous account done directly after your edits in support of them appears to be the most transparently clear of sockpupperty that has ever existed.
I'm posting this here because I want to hear an explanation from you about this before I take it to Wikipedia administration. You deserve a fair hearing. Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I could report you for this, but I won't if you would- for one- stop to actually make a valid argument for your edits on a talk page.
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg. Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It'll probably still have to go through AFD, but I suppose it was a rather unclear speedy deletion. Sorry about that, · Andonic Contact 08:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop removing images as you did in the articles Joseph Wapner & Jorge Ortiz de Pinedo. First of all, those images you removed are free images & have fair use rationales as approved by WP:Fair use. Also, we do not remove such images except in the case of vandalism, or unless there is already a free image of that person on Wikipedia--That is certainly a no-no. It is very important that you review WP:Fair use before you remove any other images. You may also discuss this change in the article's Discussion Page & wait for a concensus before you make the edit.
- MegastarLV ( talk) 5:54 August 2010
please do not change the edits i made to some pornstars pages yesterday. all of the info as far as their birth names is correct and widely available on IMDB.com, you can go check for yourself. as far as some of the other info you removed i really don't have a problem with it, some of it was dubious/silly, and i'll admit i made some unnecessary edits on 1 or 2 pages but the birth names are all CORRECT info so please do not change them back again. if you do i will just keep reverting them back (i have alot of time on my hands and it will be no problem for me)
P.S. - the middle names of 2 of the pornstars i corrected are not on IMDB however they are correct. they are from a forum which is no longer online and the other was said in a movie i watched (yes, i'm a fan of porn, i'm assuming you are also). i apologize if i sound rude but i'm a little annoyed that you went and removed all the data i took the time to look up and enter. again, if you change anything i will constantly revert back the correct info i entered so please leave it the way it is so we don't have to let this get out of hand, thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummy Dummy ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know what's your point to say my edit on Jenna Haze's article is spam. I'm adding a new award she just won. I'm not using as source the Fame Registry site since it is a new annual Award. I gave a 3rd party reliable source (XBiz) giving coverage to the Fame Registry Awards. If you don't know it, XBiz is one of the biggest sites for adult news. Purplehayes2006 ( talk) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is concerning the Newsweek quote concerning Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Movement. I understand that Newsweek is considered by some to be a "reliable source". In fact, I usually would as well. However, just take a look at the quote:
"Tea partiers are driven by the belief that the America that elected Barack Obama isn't their America, and Beck comforts them by telling them they're right: that the America they love, the America they now feel so distant from, the America of faith and the Founders and some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past, is still there, waiting to be awakened from Obama's evil spell. And he flatters them by saying that the coastal elites are too stupid or too lazy to figure out what's really going on; only his loyal viewers are perceptive enough to see the truth and, ultimately, to save the nation."
First of all, this author BEGINS by somehow reporting what is in the minds of members of the tea party. Then he continues by somehow knowing that their motivation is by flattery? How does the author gain this insight into the minds of Tea Partiers? Then the author speaks of Tea Partiers wanting to go back to "some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past" and being against "Obama's Evil spell". This is clearly a mocking tone. How can you possibly consider this quote to be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smpf38 ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether the quote is "neutral" is a red herring. It's included in the article as represeenting a nontrivial range of opinion concerning Beck, and it does that reasonably well. NPOV requires that the article as a whole be balanced, not that it be neutered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It does not do it well. Look at the other factual information above and below the Newsweek quote. This quote doesn't fit there. It throws the information under the heading of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement out of balance. Each subheading should have balance as well as the overall article. Furthermore, the quote simply is not a well orchestrated opinion from the Newsweek author because he pretends to know what is going on in the minds of all kinds of different individuals and does so in a mocking tone. Surely you can see that. Smpf38 ( talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely I deny that. The comments that you see as "pretending to know" is limited to the opening clause, where it's a fair and reasonably neutral summary of a view that's been prominently stated by tea-partiers. The material you describe as "mocking" relates instead to Bweck's own commentary, and relates only to what he says, not his supposed state of mind. And it's mainstream analysis, milder than (say) Stewart or Olbermann. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Tea partiers talk about "Leave it to Beaver"? Who in the tea party? And when has Glenn Beck called coastal elites "stupid or lazy"? Smpf38 ( talk) 03:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I assume that this is the page you meant, since Sadif Munir doesn't exist. Your removal of the speedy template was incorrect since there is no assertion that she meets the relevant guideline, in particular Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.... Even if she is notable, the article is written like spam (which is the other reason I gave in my deletion edit summary), and is an unsourced biography of a living person (the "references" are spam and do not support the claims made). It stays deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
On a page called i've introduced a new controversy section(backed by very powerful sources) on
All India Trinamool Congress, some users've reverted my edits claiming my sources as unreliable ones(but as per wikipedi's policy they are powerful). I've posted an RSN, which didnt suite one user Active Banana(he has roll back rights). So he had roll backed my RSN. Now I am confused what to do. Please tell me whether the following sources are OK or not:
Main Story on AITC-Maoist Nexus in Mail Today
Story in CNN IBN
Both of them are very well known Newspapers/Tv channels of India.
Please help quickly in the matter. Please reply soon.
Basuupendra (
talk)
13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that all Tony Award nominees meet WP:ENT or are otherwise notable? I'm willing to believe there could be and I just don't know it. If so, maybe that could be added to WP:ENT which seems awefully barebones for a guideline anyway. Novaseminary ( talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You're telling me he is notable enough to merit hundreds of articles about his films, a good majority of them being unsourced and without mention in any reliable sources (at least, I have 10 of them so far)? EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted a large amount of material on this article. Unfortunately, I see that much of it had been reliably sourced- for example, you added tags for citations being needed on assertions that, before your edit, were cited to reliable sources, such as the website of the production company that bought the rights to the movie she was interviewed in, pictures taken by Life magazine, and the major source for the article, a book by Brian Alexander which provided her real name and interests. I have restored all material that was sourced reliably, in addition to toning down some of the advertising-like statements. Try not to pull the trigger quite so fast next time? Full-page excerpts from the book that confirmed the material in the article were an immediate top ten hit on Google Books. Thanks. — Chromancer talk/ cont 02:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Just reality checking - do my arguments that the original 2nd AfD nom was invalid (fishing expedition), and the post-close flip mandates a no-consensus, hold any water? Noooobody responded to that. -- Lexein ( talk) 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you removed the image at my draft page User:Lefteh/Paula_Brooks? Lefteh ( talk) 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Re [65]: We do not permit the usage of per character images on "List of" type articles. There's been several, several debates about this in the past. The practice is to restrict such usage to a primary cast photograph ( example, and/or to restrict usage of per character images to crucial, central characters. By the very definitions in the sections listed, the images were being used on secondary characters.
The argument you're using of there being substantial content has been used before and failed. The reality here is these are not central characters. Further, the content in these sections is almost completely unreferenced. Wikipedia insists on reliance on secondary sources in order to maintain neutrality. This is not a fan site. Including such large, undocumented sections in an article isn't within our guidelines. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). So these "lengthy" sections do not belong, unless secondary sources can be found to support them. It's massive overkill in writing about these characters. It's not enough to just have content. You have to have well sourced content. You're unlikely to get such lengthy content for a secondary character.
If you disagree with this, I strongly suggest you take the issue up at either WP:NFCR or WT:NFC. Do not restore the images; doing so violates policy and guideline. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh I'll definitely restore that image unless you can provide some better rationale. I'm only posting here first in the interested of preventing an edit war. Your assumption that it is "obvious" does not qualify. Licensing has been clearly cited in the article and I will happily point you in the direction of the promotional press material it was included in if you insist on being obtuse and arbitrary. Lahnfeear ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello mate. Just letting you know that a new user ( Perthmonsit) is undoing all your recent edits. Could he be a sock puppet of someone you know perhaps? Jevansen ( talk) 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this better? I keep forgetting to change the edit summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I was given permission to use it by Mr. Mair himself. Prescottbush ( talk) 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you like me to semi-protect your userpage? Enigma msg 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Both User:1exec1 & User:WikiTome have looked at the Mark Ryden article. Looks Great! You will see I have added much reference, please do not undo with out talking. [66] [67] Thanks, 69.238.167.40 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC).
Have you considered archiving your talk page, it is incredibly long and may cause certain editors with slow connections lots of problems considering there are now over 300 sections, you don't have to since it is your talk page. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:42pm • 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer. 100% of the content is already at Big Time Rush (band), so it probably even qualifies for A10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stay out of that posting and STOP undoing items. I have been a senior member of her website and inner circle for sometime now. Vicky & Rockerr (current husband & mgr) kabitz with me on everthing that is posted. Refrain from undoing anything. If you have a question or I need to improve upon something - ASK FIRST! Db54 ( talk) 21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Listen you dickweed - Dismas and I worked out a considerably amount of intormation that was previously there so don't make erroneous assumptions. It is not ADVERTISING nor is it PUBLICITY but has a bonafide connection to IT's SOURCE! THE LINKS on ALL ARTICLES connect in somewhere and somplace to PUBLICITY. The REFERENCEs are reflective of her history IN HER OWN WORDS and YOU DOn't GET much better than that! AND STOP UNDOING AWARDS and REFERENCES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
When the shoe fits you have to wear it. I am opening up a complaint aagainst you and your UNAUTHORIZED undo without any discussion beforehand! FUrthermore, this is a quote to me from Vicky with regards to WikPedia and HER PAGE (NOT yours) How strange the page is almost empty, looks like someone stripped it! The link to the yahoo group is wrong, and there are barely any other links. there are a million interviews and articles on avn, but they don't list any of them... what a mess!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You will die you have grandkids so all the stuff you do will be reversed some day get off the computer and stop wasting what little time you have left of you life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.132.23 ( talk) 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP-hopping_vandal_returns. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment on made Saturday Night Live (season 36) The confirmed on air contains a source. It's made by the show, it is the strongest source given. Just because it aired on TV does not mean a thing over wise.
Water78 ( talk • contribs) 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless of course NYTimes decides to take down the source. Water78 ( talk
What is happening with you? my editions are good. I took an example article, Ali Larter, it has a similar information: film grosses, critical reception, and more. Stop, please. We really need to read about her and her movies, but you're right, the stuff can involve the article subject. with related to special effects, i edited the article. It has not information about effects. 201.233.240.206 ( talk) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm totally ok with you going to the original ANI post and seeking block review; I'll go along with whatever consensus is there. Obviously, I feel it was appropriate (which is why I did it) but I won't pretend to be perfect. Rahter than discuss between ourselves, let's go to where others will join in - that also helps avoid splitting discussion up. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I knew there was something up with this editor, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Very hard to deal with, not a smidgen of collegiality. I wish I knew who it was. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Watch out for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. All of your false edit summaries do nothing but stack up against you. Your interpretations of policy are way off, and your unhelpful edits are unwelcome in this article. Read the supporting citations.-- Lexein ( talk) 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
-- Lexein ( talk) 07:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, yes, I was being bitchy. But can you please tell me what was wrong with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reggie_Young? That was clearly me self-closing as a withdrawn AFD, which is entirely appropriate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#False_accusations. Thank you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily dispute your decision, please see my talk page - jc37 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article J. G. Quintel, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Granted that this artist has a charted production, it is charted only in the Indie chart, which does not qualify, I believe, for inclusion under the policy outlined in WP:BAND.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you edited the personal section from the Tess Broussard article.
I created the article and would like to add back a reworked section. here it is:
Personal Life
Broussard was engaged to wrestling star Stone Cold Steve Austin [6] from 2002 to 2004. Their breakup was due to domestic violence, steroid and alcohol abuse. [7] [8] [9] [10]
What are your thoughts?
Thanks.
Dk4wiki ( talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the wikibias website? could you give me the link? i tried to search it and nothing came up.
thanks.
Dk4wiki ( talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you can find a source to the claim made on the article because I can't might be something to do with the name used. Mo ainm ~Talk 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Poorly sourced? I'm sorry is a news article not good enough now? Please don't take this personally but I think a news article is sourced well enough. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:35pm • 09:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
had started this pg last yr and lately whatever additions I make from third party bios found etc you keep deleting. Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Abbott_(director)
I already went through this recently with someone else just coming and undoing everything for no reason. Now this page is much worse off and skeletal then where it was before your deletes. This is not helping when you just delete info for no reason. What is the reason for this? Everything that been added from from a third party bio and approved by the blp board. I am undoing your edits, please do not keep undoing whatever I work on your doing this on other pages too.
You simply stated (diff | hist) . . Jennifer Abbott (director); 18:24 . . (-654) . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (unreferenced etc) Yet clearly it WAS added a new reference page of the author bio website it came from written about this person. So it was referenced why did you delete saying unreferenced. Did you look at it before you go and just undo everything? If I am doing something wrong please advise or explain and I can correct whatever it may be. Thank you Nobelone ( talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I ran into an IP hopper you dealt with earlier ([* [68]). Over the past few weeks they've been making low-level disruptive changes to date formats. Earlier they were changing instances of "Walt Disney" to "Walter Disney". From your edit summary you seem to know a little more of the editing pattern than I do. Let me know if you think this is part of a longer term problem.]
Here are some recent diffs to underline my point (the IPs are actually sequential and the focus on Disney and the style changes strongly suggest the same person).
[69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] (one that was recently repeated)
Shadowjams ( talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You deleted my edit on Matthew Marsden. I said he jumped from 13,500 feet. The Golden Knight he jumped with said on the video on youtube that they were going "14,000 feet straight down". Also only pro military people get asked to jump with the Golden knights.
Secondly on the dvd extras on Rambo Marsden said he was pro military. He also appeared on the "Troopathon" in support of the military. http://www.gawkk.com/matthew-marsden-and-friends-on-troopathon-2010-standing-for-our-soldiers/discuss
Marsden's wife was pregnant with his third child at the premier of Transformers. http://www.zimbio.com/Matthew+Marsden/articles/BkjHMdIv6Zw/Parents+Matthew+Marsden+Nadine+Micallef
Please put these back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.6.157 ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To Hullaballoo. I am not claiming to be an expert on many things. But on this subject I am more or less an expert due to the fact I have worked with it since spring 1999. Kosovo is according to the vast majority of the IC (International community), ie UN, OSCE, EU, IOC and 122 of the worlds 192 countries, a Serbian province today. What it will be in a year or in 50 years, no one knows. As today as we speak, Kosovo is not even close to be an own country. Like I said, this could be changed. BUT, I thought that Wikipedia should reflect as close as we could come to the truth RIGHT NOW. Am I wrong ? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.156.162 ( talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
To Hullaballoo. I am not claiming to be an expert on many things. But on this subject I am more or less an expert due to the fact I have worked with it since spring 1999. Kosovo is according to the vast majority of the IC (International community), ie UN, OSCE, EU, IOC and 122 of the worlds 192 countries, a Serbian province today. What it will be in a year or in 50 years, no one knows. As today as we speak, Kosovo is not even close to be an own country. Like I said, this could be changed. BUT, I thought that Wikipedia should reflect as close as we could come to the truth RIGHT NOW. Am I wrong ? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.156.162 ( talk) 20:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Some months ago, someone created an article about Conor Clifford, and then someone deleted it because he hasn't made his official debut. So, why Jan Šebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló and Jhon Pírez have to have their own articles if they haven't made their official debut in any team? Now, another thing happens, the four first articles that I said violate the copyright rules, as you can see in this links: Jan Sebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló. I'll be waiting for your answer. Archibald Leitch ( talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Some months ago, someone created an article about Conor Clifford, and then someone deleted it because he hasn't made his official debut. So, why Jan Šebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló and Jhon Pírez have to have their own articles if they haven't made their official debut in any team? Now, another thing happens, the four first articles that I said violate the copyright rules, as you can see in this links: Jan Sebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló. I'll be waiting for your answer. Archibald Leitch ( talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Content in these BLP articles is copy violation and if a player has not a first team appearance he is generally not wiki notable.
Off2riorob (
talk)
21:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The haven't first team appearances for gods sake! How can you say they deserve an article? Archibald Leitch ( talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
BUT ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE IS COPYVIO!! You should look the links that I gave you again. But forget it!!! I'm tired of this shit!! I said it and I will say it again: YOUR RULES ARE SHIT!!!! Those fucking articles are clearly copyvio and those players haven't made any first team appearance!!!!! That's what I hate about your shitty rules!!! You delete any fucking article about any fucking player because he didn't do a first team debut but when somebody report shitty articles as the ones that I gave you, you say that THIS SHIT and THIS ANOTHER SHIT AND I'M TIRED OF THAT!!!! Go fuck yourself and get a life you FUCKING NOOBS!!!! thank you for your time. Archibald Leitch ( talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You just reverted him. I'm convinced he's not new, and based on today's behaviour, probably evading a previous block. Any idea as to who he might be?— Kww( talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Christopher G. Donovan, don't you find it at little odd that the CTHDO2010 wsa created today and had only edited that one page until today because it was an IP user, and is likely somehow tied to the campaign? Markvs88 ( talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know that the artist's article has now been deleted. That's why I tagged the album for A9; the artist looked like a slamdunk A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
RE: Recent reverts... I will do the proper thing (per Wiki) and contact you to discuss this instead of dispute it with edit wars. You need to explain to me what source isn't acceptable and why. There were more than one given. I'm not sure what you are disputing. There were several different edits made and you can't toss out the entire edit. I expanded on what was already there. Someone removed "dispite public rumors" that had no source for a long time. I did 80% (over time) of this article. So I know a bit about it. If you would actually VIEW the sources, there is a video of the show where it is said. So you can not argue that. Both sources contain a video source. So even if the site isn't accepted, you know it really happened or was said. You need to explain yourself and not just say I'm tossing links in where they don't belong when there are supporting pre-existing context. The info is fine, but if you are determined to dispute it regardless, you need to provide proof it is not legit. I would appreciate handling this a mature and logical way as required of us on here. I seem to be the only one lately caring to do that but so be it. I'm not trying to be right or get my way, I'm helping the article and making it better. You need to show me specifically what isn't acceptable, remove it, leave the rest. Not "toss the baby out with the bath water". I know it's easier to just revert everything, but that is not the right thing to do. If the links should be put after sentences or paragraphs, then please move it should they be mid-sentence. I'm trying to figure out what your dispute is and resolve it. We are supposed to do so this way before reverting things back-and-forth. I've explained myself, I hope you do too because it's not clear. This isn't an attack, it's just a discussion to resolve the matter. I appreciate it kindly. Thank you and have a good day/night. 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 02:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please disregard, I resolved this with another editor who claimed the content was fine but the proper way to tag references was not. Thanks for your interest, nonetheless. I usually post with [ ] and someone just fixes the format, without undoing the entire edit. My bad if it was done wrong. Just needed clarity. Have a nice day/night! 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, You removed my addition to the Gordon Nuttall page this morning. I believe an initial superlative about the level of corruption places the rest of the page in context. The CM changed the link during the day and it is now found at the Herald-Sun site.
Is your problem a) loss of the link to the original source (today's CM headline) or b) the description of Nuttall as our most notoriously corrupt politician? I was going to simply re-insert the sentence with the corrected citation but thought you may have reservations about b). If so, can you name a more corrupt Australian politician?
Please advise. Didactik ( talk) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can you please tell me how the Tears, Lies and Alibis redirect was inappropriate? The article in question is one sentence long and completely devoid of sources. WP:NMUSIC clearly supports redirection in this case, so I feel a discussion over it would be superfluous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I agree entirely with your rationale and I have no problems whatsoever with your removing the CSD notice. However, this does not avoid the issue, that in its present form, the page is extremely promotional in support of a political candidature, and has been posted shortly before an upcoming election. As you suggested, the page is not unsalvagably editable, but this must be done very quickly in order to demonstrate that an encyclopdia is not a political platform. Whilst assuming good faith, I do feel that the creator may uknnowingly be gaming the system with his appeals at talk:Jeremy Karpen, User talk :ConcentratedAllPurposeCleaner, and could possibly be a sockpuppet here: User talk:Jeremykarpen. Cheers, -- Kudpung ( talk) 01:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged your talk page for the archiving bot as its very long, so that you don't have to trawl through hundreds of old threads to read your messages. If you don't like it just remove the code at the top of the page-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 04:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, you're the subject of a discussion at ANI. I'm not involved. Just notifying you, as I would want the same, and it's procedure. See:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saebvn ( talk) 04:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a Requests for Comment on you. Your comments are welcomed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why having 20 sources doesn't remove the need for a {{BLPsources}}
tag.
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Just thought you'd like to know after you reverted me Sarekofvulcan stepped in and reverted you on Hitomi Kobayashi, i wouldn't revert him if i was you, go to the talkpage and speak with dekkipedia to gain consensus, you've got an admin now telling you your 3rr does not apply argument doesn't wash now-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
HW, if it's such an "undisputed" NFCC violation, nominate the image for deletion which would entail a discussion rather than edit warring on the article page. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted some of your edits to Nessa Devil. You removed 4 sources. I restored two of them, that were reliable. (I added info about them in Talk:Nessa Devil) -- Neo139 ( talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them:
El País, published for instance in nacional sites, culture, books 2006: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Artur/Balder/triunfa/narrativa/infantil/debuta/historica/elpepicul/20060610elpepicul_5/Tes?print=1
On the other hand it is strange that someone can state that may be the Artur Balder of Little Spain is not the same as the Artur BAlder of the books, since at the official site of the documentary you can download the press kit in high resolution, and in the chapter that it dedicates to the director, Artur Balder is the author of El Evangelio de la Espada, Crónicas de Widukind, and this is too in the GERMAN wikipedia stated. Both links:
http://little-spain.us/Little_Spain_Prensa_2010.pdf
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Balder
The Little Spain official site links to an official Flickr site where is clear to see the references of Artur Balder. I invite you to visit the www.little-spain.us
Artur Balder is author of, as far as I know, 7 novels, some them translated into 8 languages, including nederlands, italian, french, with major publishing houses. The publishing house in spanish for his fantasy fiction is Random House Mondadori. You can read at the corporate website of RHM the recommendation of the author:
http://www.randomhousemondadori.com/Sellos/SellosFicha.aspx?Idioma=En&id=15
The historical fiction is being published by Edhasa, a major prestigious publishing house in Spain:
The official site for its last historical fiction, published in november 2010, had a shortfilm for promotion of the saga, and all the information is available in english, german and spanish, with an excerpt of the book in russian, too:
htt://www.widukind.eu
References caused by announcement the documentary of "Little Spain":
Looking at the search result you can see ALL the spanish media in the list in the first 100 results, from La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, La Razón... Just all. There is consensus about the relevance of the work of Artur Balder in relationship with the restoring of the historical memory of a large number of immigrants in New York City and Little Spain.
The information, that was not intended primarly to the american media, was however trnaslated from agency EFE AMERICA reports into the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Latin American Herald Tribune, and translated into english:
Particularly the link to The Latin American Herald Tribune:
http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13003&ArticleId=378105
And this is the resulat of a first private screening at La Nacional, the Spanish Benevolent Society of NY, last november, for the Spanish media and media agencies. Wikipedists have to know that the documentary is going to be released in a major film festival of New york city in 2011, but I cannot write down the name since it will be 100% sure.
The IMDb has accepted the credits of Balder's work in film industry during the last 10 years:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3470412/
Articles about Artur Balder are present in about 10 languages of Wikipedia, included the german one.
I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past.
Lolox76 (talk)-- Lolox76 ( talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Even though we're on opposite sides of the inclusionst/deletionist divide with respect to the article in question, it was downright refreshing to read your well-reasoned, well-worded, calm and collected argument in favour of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Roxxx (2nd nomination), considering how some of the other editors voting for deletion decided to go about phrasing their arguments. Keep up the fine, cool-headed work. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
TPH is under a lot of heat for WP:CIVIL violations, but that doesn't give you a license to behave similarly]. His base assertion seems correct: there aren't any sources for that thing.— Kww( talk) 14:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you're interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Lande. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trebor ( talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have reverted another editor, it is pretty much mandatory that you discuss it with him. That's how the WP:BRD cycle works. If you refuse to discuss your edits, I will consider blocking you on those grounds alone.— Kww( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I seem to have repeated that horrible incivility for which I was instantly blocked-- and right on the ANI board, viewable by multiple Admins! Oh goodness gracious!!! But what's this, what's THIS? Going on an hour later, and not so much as an eyebrow raised. Could it POSSIBLY be that the block was unjust and biased, but since it was done by a popular loudmouth with a large following, "consensus" approved it? Oh no. That would mean that the "rules and policies" here are just a big joke. Well, apologies for the incivility anyway, and for all the bile spewed at the RfC. And thanks for helping to drive me away from this madhouse. Regards, and happy editing. Dekkappai ( talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm curious why you removed the deletion tag for the Pulse album. The artist exists, but the album does not (it has not been released - it is expected to be released in Feb). I can't see how it can be kept under Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball or under any notability criteria (If you look up the 'reviews' a number appear to be on sites where anyone can publish reviews, and so are not RS). Can you reconsider this one? Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that she was born in 1930, then says that her career started in 1930. I would say that qualifies as a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
TPH made significant changes to his comment above while I was replying to it, removing a disproved claim that illustrates a serious problem with his editing. ::I did do a Google search in English, Azerbaijani and Russian. Even so, it's clear you found something that I didn't. You were right. (But can you please lay off calling me "incompetent"? There's no need for repeated insults.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't look like TPH alerted you of the AN/I discussion concerning you, so I'm doing it.
Incidentally, would you please consider archiving your talk page? Thanks, 28bytes ( talk) 04:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop trying to find flaws in everything. Removing sourced information in such a brutal way, in addition removing a perfectly accepted free image is not acceptable. You can try to be bold and add a reference or request for a reference instead of resorting complere removal. This attitude of yours is unacceptable and the next time it happens, you will be reported at ANI. Shahid • Talk2me 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi HW. Thanks for removing the "speedy" for Ieuan Morris - error of judgement on my part. May see you at the AfD. Thanks again! -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Wack Pack 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/Wack Pack 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. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I am currently revising the content of this page to avoid another deletion. This includes checking all references, citations that are needed, and addressing aditional concerns (COI, etc.). We do not intend this to be a glorified or biased bio page, yet rather to establish Beth S. Green in conjunction with her present status with NYIP (New York Institute of Photography), and other notible references which should be acceptable to wiki's standards and guidelines, in a neutral point of view.
If you can give me just a few days to accomplish that, it would be greatly appreciated since I can only work on this during evening hours, or limited hours, online.
Thank you for your consideration.
Drmidi2010 ( talk) 23:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia says “To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.”
And goes on to say, “The most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.”
According to Wikipedia, the two articles and three books in the bibliography are all secondary sources. The four films in the bibliography and the Nadoolman interview are all primary sources.
The secondary sources mention the fact that Lucas worked on the documentary while Mackenna’s Gold was being filmed, and that Mackenna’s Gold motifs are present throughout the Indiana Jones franchise. Additionally, the films reference each other the same as any books do.
The Films in Review article has the quote, “We chose The Secret of the Incas (A 1954 action thriller starring Charlton Heston), which more than any other single film, Spielberg and Lucas drew upon for inspiration…”
TCM’s Richard Harland Smith states plainly, “Certainly, the George Lucas/ Lawrence Kasdan/Philip Kaufman story and screenplay for Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark was rooted in the serial tropes of Hollywood westerns but the coincidence cuts even deeper. Present on location was George Lucas himself…”
WikiPolicy states: “Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.”
I’m not sure what else you expect to see here, Hullaballoo – are you wanting direct quotations from each source, as well as DVD counter-stops for the films? (I thought people with grandkids were supposed to be happy. LOL.) Dutchmonkey9000 ( talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Al Roker: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -- Flyguy33 ( talk) 16:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion to the other admin and as to why did they delete "Miracle at Donna" as a speedy deletetion.
any suggestions on how to get this written right ? so it doesnt get deleted?
best Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpublicist ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please remember that if you're trying to suppress information, posting it on the most widely watched board won't necessarily help... :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I work with Jason Gardiner and notice that you keep changing his age and DOB on this page. To confirm his DOB is 6th Nov 1971 making Jason 39 not 45. Please stop changing this entry, If you want to discus this further I can provide you with contact details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.10.250 ( talk) 11:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I think it was previously deleted because, according to the talk page of Jewtonian ( talk · contribs), who started it, there was a tag to delete it on December 10. It was recreated in January. It was probably deleted with a title including the YISE. I am a tad confused, so you may be able to discern this better than I currently am. Thanks and happy editing.-- TM 05:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
HW, you need to get a couple of ideas straight. First, there is no connection between me (former Magpie1892) and the IP listed. Simply checking the addresses would show this, if you could be bothered. Second, I was having issues with you long before my previous ban; you know this, so I don't know why you pretend otherwise. I'm hardly alone in having issues with you, as we see daily. Just understand that I can and will edit whenever it suits me, OK? -- 85.237.211.208 ( talk) 10:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the "credible claim of significance" in the article? The only reference given is that of hoonur.com which anybody can create. The movie link doesn't contain her name. So, where's the credibility in this article? Boolyme बूलीमी Chat बोलो!! 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Good catch on the ref - it looked good to me, so I never followed it up. The IP socks and brand-new editor User:Scott Scott Hayden are editwarring to reinstate, so keep an eye on it -- I'm at 3RR. I've filed a sockpuppet report here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, can you please have a look at this article. I feel as if it being unfairly labeled by a different editor. You have revised it in the past. The editor is using old revisions no longer relevant to the article against the current article. I have followed every rule and the piece as it stands is notable, has third party references, and is written from a neutral point of view. Any advice would be helpful as I am finding it very difficult to please certain editors. Thanks so much! SJayQ ( talk) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you removed the tag. The reason I tagged was [88] and en pages only. Do you still think the man is notable? The creator of the article is his son. The interwiki links are not correct. Click any. It will bring you to a category page. Oda Mari ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could tell me where in the article there is a credible claim of significance? Regards Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it greatly if you could actually look at the references to the document I edited today. They are all credible and from Philadelphia Newspapers souch as the Inquirer, Daily News, and The Daily Pennsylvanian. You speak about nuetrality? That does not exist in its current form on this page, where she is lauded with praise. The negativity must be expressed also. I think you are being overly vague, in your comments as to why you feel you had to change what is printed facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcgain ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please tell what is wrong with the information I posted on the Elizabeth Mitchell page as I do not see anything wrong with it as it is fully referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mua27 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You've give a reason for removing the Prod but could you explain it for me. You say significance - do you mean significant coverage of the subject? I notice there is an "Identifcation controversy" but the actual section does not mark out how important the controversy is, eg if it has an effect outside coverage of the subject itself. In all I just have my doubts about this. I'd like your opinion first and I hope you won't take it personally should I disagree. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a message for you at Raigad Ropeway talk page. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 04:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Adding the trout was classic!-- Milowent • talk blp-r 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to remove text like you did here, could you at least make sure you're not breaking a citation? That particular LA Times piece was cited twice in the Ginger Lynn article. Tabercil ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI opened on your vandalism of Kerry Katona. Thanks, -- 82.41.20.82 ( talk) 10:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
hello the IP 82.41 reported you to AIV, I just removed the report, as it was a bit suspicious, is this IP angry at you for something?-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not Scottish. I'm English. I know a lot about Ross Laidlaw though - his books are superb. -- 82.41.20.82 ( talk) 00:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Write This Down (band)'s notability. the article does not explain how they meet WP:BAND. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I am surprised that you get hounded when you restore material that is a) not only absolute nonsense, b) been deleted several times and c) reference it to an article which doesn't even mention the "fact"! -- Shylocksboy ( talk) 00:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed this - At the very least, the news article must include content related to the claim it is cited for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You don't even follow your own rules. -- Shylocksboy ( talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I've requested Mfmoviefan ( talk · contribs) be blocked for spamming. From what I've seen so far, this looks like part of long-running spamming for Mark Sells. You mentioned sockpuppetry on his talk page. Can you provide details on the other socks? So far, I've just some ip's (all but one in the Denver, CO area) and Mark Sells' account: 65.218.133.150 ( talk · contribs)(St Louis, MO), 67.176.123.201 ( talk · contribs), 71.229.160.234 ( talk · contribs), 71.229.171.157 ( talk · contribs), 75.71.22.124 ( talk · contribs), 174.51.211.253 ( talk · contribs), & Thereeldeal ( talk · contribs). -- Ronz ( talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hannah Conda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't completely understand why you would completely remove the entire "Personal Life" section from the Lauren Conrad page. I am trying to make it updated and to the standards of wikipedia. Yes, maybe The Hollywood Gossip is not an appropriate enough of a source. But the Access Hollywood article was, and your only reasoning for removal of that was that "February 2010 is not current." If you are going by that standard, much of the information on wikipedia would be "outdated." Ryanlively ( talk) 23:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've undone most of the destructive editing you did in Nudity in film, in which you deleted my entire addition. Since your comment said "speculation" I removed the only part that can be considered speculation (i.e., "may have been inadvertent"). The rest is merely factual and does not require any citation, since the film itself is still widely available on DVD and can be easily checked for consistency with what was posted. My addition is relevant to the subject matter of the page, and should not be deleted out of hand by you. If you still have a problem with it, please take it to "discussion" or talk, or contest it through the proper administrative channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embram ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Embram ( talk) 19:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For removing fluff from several articles! CutOffTies ( talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
If it sways your opinion any, I e-mailed Nielsen at least twice regarding any archival of the Canadian country and digital charts. They said that there isn't any sort of paid-subscription archive for them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me Mr. Wolfowitz. I do not know what motivated you to remove all of the content in the article Michael Frost Beckner but it is you who should be removed from this forum. I am the biographer for this living person and have dutifully sourced all of the content. I am not a close associate of Mr. Beckner, but have done a significant amount of research about him and do consider myself an expert in this area. Your actions have degraded the the reputation of yourself and of Wikipedia as a source of useful information. Dwwinter ( talk) 04:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason for this edit is that I cannot verify the Vietnamese claim that Phan Dinh Phung had killed in battle. The thing is the cause of Phan Dinh Phung's death is still a question in Vietnam, most historians tend to not describe clearly why Phan Dinh Phung died and some others used the French's accounts. I found the "Phan Dinh Phung was killed by the French" claim only in some online newspapers and the writers ain't historian at all. I'm Vietnamese and so that please don't accuse me of siding with the French! And you should note that the primary editor of this article, YellowMonkey, is also Vietnamese too.-- 115.75.155.250 ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It is still a question in Vietnam to me because these online article(s). Give that the French claim has been cited by using an American professor in the body of the article, I will revert your edit once again and will revert it if you do it again. You claim that it is "unreferenced and unsourced" has demonstrated you haven't read the whole article and you reverted my edits because that I'm an anonymous user.
Phan died of dysentery on January 21, 1896, and his captured followers were executed. A report submitted by the de Lanessan to the Minister of Colonies in Paris stated that "the soul of resistance to the protectorate was gone".(Marr, p. 68.)
And the Vietnamese claim has no reliable citation at all. If there is still no consensus, I will report it the WPMILHIST.-- 115.75.155.250 ( talk) 22:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
I think 115.75.155.250 is right :
here (among others), and the author called Phan Dinh Phung a patriot. (I accepted the changes and then saw this talk). Ciao.
Alvar☮
23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a specialist and won't edit this article any more. Ciao Alvar☮ 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Followig my request for help on wpvi: this can help? Alvar☮ 13:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just made edits to the page in my userspace, so it now looks a bit different than when you saw it. However, while I cannot point out an argument to the article being reasonably deleted before (I still think it's a stretch, but I can't argue it), I do now think being nominated for Rookie of the Year is a valid argument of notability. Would it be better to move the article back and, if someone still disagrees, it go back to deletion discussion? CycloneGU ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny ( talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo. Thanks for correcting hatnote to the correct author, but there is no article for the book. According to WP:HATNOTE, "Hatnotes should not be used for articles that do not exist since the notes are intended to point the user to another article they may have intended to find. The exception is if one intends to create the linked article immediately. In that case, consider creating the new article first, before saving the addition of the hatnote". There is an article on the author, but not the book. The same guideline applies to disambiguation pages, so if there is no article on The Other Side of Time, the book, then there should not be either a dab page or a hatnote. I'll revert the change, but this is not an edit war, this is simply following guidelines. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As an editor at Nicole Kidman affected by the user in question, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Abusive, edit-warring DeadSend4. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"Isn't there a relevant ArbCom ruling, even if not exactly applicable here, which might serve to alert one or more of the disputants about overly combative editing in this general area?"
Will you please be so kind to explain me what exactly you had in mind when you wrote above mentioned comment?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out in updating the Hugo Award lists for the 2011 noms! -- Pres N 20:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
You state much more in depth and concisely what took me a long time to puzzle out and word. I'm betting you've used it in the past, and it's worth stealing borrowing for future use, if you don't mind.
Dru of Id (
talk)
12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, The link ( http://crassunofficial.com/) that I attempted to place in the External links of the Crass page was removed by you on the pretext that it was 'per ELNO, fansite spam'. Please forgive my ignorance in not automatically knowing what 'per ELNO' (Electro-Acoustic and Communication Systems?) is but this page/link is definitely not attributable to what you have deemed as 'fansite spam'.
Given that the page/link contains information and correspondence (as does the link titled 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED (Viceland, Aug 2010) lengthy interview with Penny and Steve, 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' that precedes it) I would have thought that any more references and correspondence referring to 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' would have been a totally relevant addition to the page.
Although not stated in the page/link, I believe it to have been collated by Pete Wright an ex member of Crass, who if you had taken the time to read and investigate the link/page had strong objections (as did four other members of the band) to the reissues that are also the subject of the section titled '2010: The Crassical Collection reissues' that is already on the wiki Crass page. Thus placing this information on the Crass page gives a more balanced account of the 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' within the band.
If you consider this to be a total irrelevance to the history of the band Crass, then I stand corrected by your decision to call this 'fansite spam'. If however after a less rash consideration, you think that my edit has some merit, please reinstate the information in such a way that is consensually acceptable to you, wikipedia and more importantly, the thousands of people who were influenced in no small way by this band.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Yours Sincerely,
Just a note that I have undeleted this article per a request at WP:REFUND. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. What do you think about adding imdb, myspace, playboy profile url and photographer to the Playboy Playmates Infobox, to make those list articles even more direct to the point? I specially don't like the repeated External links section on each list entry. -- Damiens.rf 17:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you were right on Laura Bryna being notable. I sent it to WP:REFUND because I found a bunch of sources on a reliable site called Country Standard Time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 04:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've made the changes, got rid the NPOV tag and put a new one there. I strongly suggest you don't make the 3RR as that would be a personal attack on my character. I'd also like to point out you've yet to respond to the comments I've made in response to yours. Sleetman ( talk) 05:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
How's so? I mean she did an interview and she said that she is half German and half Norwegian. Norum 17:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Fatwa? What is that? Norum 17:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
One of the playmates afds where you voted keep has been closed as a keep. As I stated on the afd, I'm greatly concerned that most (if not all) information on Jennifer Walcott is sourced either to her playboy profile, her personal homepage or her myspace page. These are unreliable sources for most kind of information.
Since you suggested in the afd that there's enough about her on google news, would you be interested in improving this article?
Within my incompetence, I could only find news articles where she's mentioned trivially in relation to her famous boyfriend.
Please, consider joining me at Talk:Jennifer_Walcott#Trivia_from_unreliable_sources for discussion about cleaning/filling the article. Your expertise is appreciated. -- Damiens.rf 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Your recommendation that the closing administrator take another look was right on the money. I was tempted to complain myself, but didn't want it to look like I had too much invested in the debate. Well done! Cullen328 ( talk) 05:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WU LYF. Robman94 ( talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
Hi, Can you help me deal with this person? He keeps reverting information on Hoda Kotb back to american ethnicity. Norum 07:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You have not engaged in any such discussion nor provided any reason why the image is a violation. If it is obvious, surely you can explain it. Your reversions amount to edit warring, which does not require a strict violation of WP:3RR. μηδείς ( talk) 03:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You have been directly or indirectly mentioned on this ANI thread. -- Damiens.rf 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Erpert
Who is this guy? |
Wanna talk about it? has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Just letting you know there are no hard feelings about this. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you moved the article to April March (dancer) and then removed the image. Why? You could have easily changed the image rationale... mabdul 08:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, much appreciated. -- 82.41.20.82 ( talk) 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Best & Co. and would sincerely appreciate your participation. I would also appreciate your clarification about whether your objection is to moving the information about a separate, unrelated topic to a separate article, or whether your objection is that the information about the second topic has effectively been deleted (since the separate article I created was deleted). I.e. do you really think the article should cover both, unrelated topics, or do you simply think the content should be preserved in some location and there is currently no better place for it? Thank you. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Samir Nasri. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JS Rant Away 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever thought about archiving some of this page? -- PhantomSteve.alt/ talk\ alternative account of Phantomsteve 03:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: if you preface a link to a page located in a namespace other then the article namespace with a colon, then it'll just show the link. So, for files, to display the link instead of the image/sound/video/whatever, you're put [[:File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg]], which would give
File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg. Sorry for the long winded explanation; I'm getting tired so it's becoming hard for me not to be verbose. ps: archive your talk page, dude! :) Regards,
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making my Cryoburn edits more accurate. Since it looks like you know more about the Locus Awards than I (I don't know much about them at all), I thought I'd ask for elaboration. On the main Vorkosigan Saga page, in the Awards and nominations section, some of the books are listed as Locus nominees (which is what I was patterning my Cryoburn edit after). Is this incorrect? Bujold also referred to Cryoburn's current Locus Award status as being a nominee [92], which is making me even more confused.
Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether the other Vorkosigan award listings need to be changed, or whether the five-finalist thing is close enough to the nominee thing done by other awards that a short format list such as the one in the article could use "nominee" as a shorthand for referring to the Locus finalists. Thanks! Princess Lirin ( talk) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. See my reply, at diff. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I see you replaced the G4 tag. The thing is back at AFD, so why was it improper to remove the G4 tag? An argument could be made that it's "not substantially identical to the deleted version." Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This edit revert was counterproductive. 107.4.30.154 ( talk) 05:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That all happened while I was asleep. By the way, your contributions at Santorum are, in my opinion, the clearest and most insightful. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your helpful addition of secondary source material to the article Slaves of Sleep. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ballantine268.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Reverting each other's edits over and over isn't something I would love to do, but the "practice" does show that if artists have their own discography pages, it's enough to only list their studio albums in the pages and use {{ main}} template. Amy Grant released dozens of albums and over 70 singles, yet it's not necessary to list all of them. You can see it by checking discography sections in these articles: WP:FA#Music_biographies. I will be sure to create the List of awards and nominations received by Amy Grant page to reduce the amount of information that consists of lists. And I highly recommend to use explanations in edit summary line to avoid misunderstandings. -- Cannot ( talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed some of the editing history on the page for Regina Russell and the following paragraph is all unsourced: "She also does hosting, and fashion and style segments as a celebrity style expert.[5] [6] She closed her store but continued to raid celebrity closets and auction clothing for charity on various TV shows." I do not see any recent press on the sourced link showing that she currently does hosting and style segments or anything showing she currently "raids celebrity closets and auctions clothing for charity on various TV shows". The last press item is dated August 2007, which means she previously did hosting and segments. User: Pinkmermaid is the subject editing her own page, removing nessesary calls for refs. This is all self sourced and self promotion, without any outside input at all. Your edits were justified and the user reverted them back to her edits once again. Also the Official Website listed takes me to the MySpace page of Regina Russell. Is MySpace considered as someone's official website? It should be referenced as her MySpace page not as an official Website. The page is protected so I can't make any edits. -- Writeitup ( talk) 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I see on the page for Regina Russell that user:Pinkmermaid removed your edit stating she is billed in the movie Hook. According to IMDB her "role" was as "Mermaid" and NOT "Red Headed Mermaid". That "role" is not first billed, it is a 6 second scene that is EXTRA work and not a "billed role" as user:Pinkmermaid is saying it is. This is the entire scene and it isn't even notable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrYYqYfEhPo -- Writeitup ( talk) 18:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, this person above is the very same person that has been vandalizing my page in the feud you mentioned. The person doesn't even know what "billing" and "first billed" even means. First billing means the ONE actor who is listed first in a films credits. i.e Tom Cruise in Top Gun. No on uses the term "unbilled". The industry standard term is "uncredited" which means the actors name is not listed in the credits. The scene is a minute and a half and what difference does it make? My name is in the credits. I am credited in that and Hollywood Homicide. The user above is just trying to harass and get real editors to do her dirty work. I will source the TV appearances but how does one do so? It's on my IMDB is that good enough. I don't know any other listings of TV appearances. Pinkmermaid ( talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey HW, as you seem to be quite familiar with these accounts, you might be interested in this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage Cheers, Rob. Robman94 ( talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi HW, I need some help/advice... The Chris Webby page was deleted in January 2011 for lack of notability yet now it is in this user's profile... and is not being improved since it's creation on 31 January 2011 (around the original article's deletion). A prior speedy delete tag in Feb 2011 was erased because "he's known by millions" and was apparently not followed up for some reason. It is being linked by Myspace and other social media, so it's being used as an advertisement of sorts. (I googled ""Chris Webby" +Metzfolife", but I can vouch that [94] and [95] work.) There's another copy here too at User:Penn12/Chris_Webby and I'm not really sure what to do about this as it's not the sort of thing I usually deal with. Can you help? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your change at Kristin Chenoweth. I laughed out loud when I saw your username. I don't know what it means, but it struck me as funny. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You edited the "Girls By Design" site out from the edit I made. Here is a YouTube link to her being associated with the site: search "Kristin Kreuk and Kendra Voth - ET Canada" on YouTube - she officially posted blogs on her site back in the day and I linked to it when adding her personal life and her saying she didn't eat meat, as well as the fact that the owns a dog named Dublin. It's on the replies section and is confirmed by the company's facebook/twitter pages. If you have any questions, please let me know if you intend on editing the page Marty2Hotty ( talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is the "Girls by Design" part is actually on the wikipedia article and was part of the references. I just put the very same website as the External Links. It cannot be more reliable than the direct source of the biographical figures actual website, which Kristin is still a very much a part of. For this particular biographical figure, she is part of the site, as per the About, and I know people directly involved with her that confirms that as well. She still has her dog and doesn't eat meat anymore. I added additional links (BC Hydro) which are secondary sources confirming she lives in Vancouver and September 2010 picture of that BC Hydro article has her picture with her dog. Update: for Hill Zaini "I heard" music video. I found a link that directs to his Wikipedia page that shows Kristin Kreuk as starring in it. I linked it even though she is prominently in the music video on the YouTube link. That would settle most if not all the edits. Many references added. Please let me know if you have more questions Marty2Hotty ( talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:JBrunnerQS.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you reconsider your decline of speedy deletion of Game On (music video). Your comments on declining it indicated that db-web could not be used on a song, however this article is about the music video and is focused on the video's presence on You Tube which makes it appropriate for db-web.-- RadioFan ( talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I see that you and a variety of others keep reverting my edits and are not giving a valid reason. "Defrag, "As before"? These do not tell me anything about what the full on problem is. Why do all of you have a problem with all my edits and don't tell me those reasons that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I really would like to understand this problem and see what we can do to solve it. Write me back as soon as you can. 173.61.170.148 ( talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Dude, cut it out!! Why are you reverting every edit I do?! You are not explaining this problem and I have not even made an attempt to talk to me or explain yourself!! Why do keep reverting my edits, huh? Saying "defrag" does not tell me one thing! I want to settle this issue but you want talk to me!! Since the beginning you have reverted my edits and I have had enough!! Talk to me so we can settle this issue. 173.61.170.148 ( talk) 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot ( talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought to bring this to your attention. I tagged the above referenced article as an A10, since removed by you, making an edit summary which states, "remove speedy, appears to be legit spinout". Since the article is an exact copy of the Still Troy article, I would like to invite you to revisit the removal of the A10, in lieu of escalating to another deletion process. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. The desired response would be for you to consider replacing the A10. Personally, I'm thinking you may have been sleepwalking or something when you initially removed it. I kinda got a chuckle out of it. Cind. amuse 13:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep reverting my edit under the information reagrding Surrey Marshe ? Surrely Marshe real name is Solveig Mellomborgen, wich clearly is a Norwegian name. She was misslabelled by Playboy as being from aalborg, Denmark, but was really 100 % Norwegian. She was only a student in Aalborg, Denmark at the time of her discovery by Playboy. The ncorrect nationality of this person is that of one being from the country of Norway. In other worlds Norwegian. Not Danish from Denmark.
I have added a source in Norwegian:
http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/side3/article2981685.ece
This source in Englishwas not blocked by Wiki for some reason:
www.associatedcontent.com/article/245372/playboy_centerfolds_from_the_1960s_pg3.html?cat=38
Please do not revert again
Mortyman ( talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see this edit of mine. Debresser ( talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Labelling something "unencyclopedic" doesn't make it so. Her publicly, and multiply documented and sourced statements are decidedly "encyclopedic." I'm reverting your "agree" deletion as inadequately explained and undiscussed, and out of step with long-standing agreement by many, many other editors. That someone (perhaps) canvassed you for help does nothing to support your position. I won't be silent in the face of deletion of sourced content. Discuss in Talk:Helena Christensen. -- Lexein ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Good. I look forward to some attention by independent editors, some of whom might be inclusionists, and some of whom might be deletionists. I look forward to their correction of your misunderstanding of 3RR, and your false characterization of "insert", "all" and inappropriate claim of "dubious noteworthiness." Do stop falsely characterizing my legitimate actions as editor against unjustified deletionism. I've done no "insertions", only reverting repeated deletions, which continued after discussion was begun. Your use of "all" exaggerates the number of editors actually discussing - it's two: you and I. The other seems to have bowed out. My edit history will stand up to any scrutiny you may wish to bring. Cheers. -- Lexein ( talk) 01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My sister knew her in school in NY. Why did you remove the reference to her real name?!?!? Put it back on the page.
Hi, Hullaballoo. Can you explain to me how the length of the video clip is a relevant criterion, or the fact that it's two years old? Since when are sources deemed invalid for either of these reasons?
Also, can you explain to me how the material constitutes "gossip", given that Benson herself is the one who mentions that she was dating Busch, and did so without any prompting from her interviewers, as it was something she mentioned in passing while answering an unrelated question about her work on Drones? Since Busch directed Drones with her, the fact that she mentions him as "my boyfriend" is rather understandable, and hardly "gossip".
If you are not convinced by my arguments, we can move this discussion to the article talk page, and invite others. Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, with respect to this edit: Actually, I think User:SupremeCommander85 was referring to this. Nonetheless, I agree with your undo. It's worth a mention in the article (and so it is, under "Retirement"), but it's not lede-worthy. Aldrin is not known for this one incident, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it there. I do like your edit summary, though. TJRC ( talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you want to delete everything about sex. That´s so obvious. So your pseudo-talk is just trash. Can you explain how your mother got pregnant, please? Oh she was pollinated by the air...interesting. -- 178.25.2.105 ( talk) 10:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it might be better to wait for a consensus before removing the images. (That is, a third opinion other than Dekkappai's tl;dr filibuster that does little but insult a whole genre with wildly inaccurate stereotypes.) I know you always have the best interests of Wikipedia policy in mind, but I honestly think that at the very least, James Bonamy and Nitty Gritty Dirt Band are exceptions that should be further analyzed by the community first. No two NFCC cases are exactly alike, after all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Delete all the country music articles except for Johnny Cash and Burl Ives". Yeah, I was obviously deadly serious there. Anyway, with all the weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and laying-on of wreaths on the grave of another editor's slain ego over my obviously Andy Kaufmanesque rant, one minor thing is being overlooked: It was meant to needle you. I don't even know the other guy ferchrissakes! (He works on country articles? I thought you did.) So why don't you pick out yourself nice little a barnstar and affix my name to it? The "I ducked the coconut cream pie and the guy behind me got it in his face" barnstar or something. Wouldn't it be great if this thing gets me banned? All the BS I've slung at you, and some guy gets his feathers ruffled over an obvious joke that wasn't even directed at him. Yep, that would wrap up my career here in a perfect little bow. Have a nice day. Dekkappai ( talk) 05:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a dynamic IP old man. As soon as you block this IP, I'm jumping to a new one. You'll just screw another user who adopts this IP address at some later point, I have 255^4 possible numbers to use. Good luck winning this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.192.243 ( talk) 01:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm using Huggle and tried to tag Political candidates and elected officials opinions on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for speedy deletion just as it was changed to a redirect. So sorry about the mistake, I was about to undo it, thanks for taking care of it for me. - Vcelloho ( talk) 03:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Klineoa-portrait.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 03:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did you edit the Dian Parkinson bio as of 7/15/11 ? You work in a school library and you have time to edit articles,what kind of job do you have? The information was correct idiot! To be honest you seem to me your the type of person I woudnt trust around kids your editing articles on a sex symbol who appeared nude in Playboy and appeared in a Playboy soft porn video during school hours and you have a history of it,why? is it because you have a perverted crush on her like a teenager ?, I cant believe it! Your a frequent contributor to Wiki and your worried about Dian Parkinson's reputation who really are you wierdo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.194.76 ( talk) 16:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Hullaballoo--will you consider leaving a message on the editor's talk page, explaining why their edits don't pass muster? Some editors don't read edit summaries very often, and it would help if edit-warring and other disruption ensues. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I realize this is a little ironic to ask, but do you have any objections to me following WP:BOLD and merging unsourced books from the series into the main page? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Courcelles 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you are quite experienced with BLP's. I know you already voted on the AfD for Marcus, but would you mind commenting over at Talk:Marcus Bachmann#BLP concerns and sharing your wisdom? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it's best not to request Revision Delete of content like that in open forums, such as talk pages. I've forwarded the issue along to the oversight team, though I'm not sure it's necessary. Thanks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While I applaud your perseverance, I am quite saddened by your lack of anything better to do with your life.Please stop vandalizing the Axel Braun page. The awards that you keep deleting are ALL legitimate, documented and very important to the Adult film community, of which obviously you don't know much. Axel Braun is a prominent Adult producer and director, and your constant vandalism is inexplicable.
Hi Hullaballoo!
Nice to see another "Wolfowitz"!
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hi Hullaballoo,
This is Patrick Reynolds, the anti-smoking advocate and former actor. I wanted to thank you for your kind advice on the Discussion page of my bio at Wikipedia, and to let you know that I have indeed been editing it. I wanted to make it more accurate, add in some little known facts about my life, and correct the few errors in the earlier version there. You're right that I am not skilled at doing things the way Wikipedia likes best; but I will take your advice and stop making edits and adding outside links to the page. My intention was just to make more info available to anyone who may want it. I dont have time to learn how to edit the page in the preferred manner, nor do I have the funds to pay someone to help me do that. I am done making changes now, and hope it will remain pretty much as it is. It seems odd to me that they classify me as an Actor, when I am a former actor. These days I am an advocate, motivational speaker, and author. If you are able to reclassify me under any of those instead of Actor, that would be wonderuful, and make the page more accurate. Further, if there are changes you know how to make to my bio there to help to get it out of the "Stub" Bio class, that would be wonderful. It's really a first class account of my whole life at this point, and some of the links and info in it are not available anywhere else. I'd be pleased to talk to you, if you wish to contact me. Thanks and all the best to you, Patrick Reynolds 2Patrick2 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
Ugh, this COI editor! Would you like to chime in on the recent edits? Mbinebri talk ← 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Freddie_Mercury&diff=441598984&oldid=441412408 ..two editors removed this (you being one and stating it was promotional/approaching the spamline, and another stating the link was unreviewed). It doesn't look in any way notable for inclusion. The person who inserted it created the link, a minor play that contains nothing about Mercury and no Queen material (just some imaginary afterlife). Freddie Mercury impersonators who play at rock concerts looks more notable than this does. MusoForde ( talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for taking those AFDs to ANI. Appreciate the support very much. Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
Let me add my thanks for your prompt and very effective action. It's good to know that somebody has my back. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, 68.167.21.82 has come back to life and it's still acting like a troll/vandal. You even get a name check in this edit. This edit shows the user's true intentions. Robman94 ( talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I've responded to your post at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Redlinking_to_personal_names after the paragraph you wrote became the justification for a tendentious edit war at Western Australian state election, 1933. If you could review the situation I would be most grateful. Orderinchaos 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, they've been well warned IMO. If they readd the information again today (which I suspect they will) report them to AIV for blocking. I'm giving you a heads-up as you're more active than I am these days and are more likely to encounter the change first. Tabercil ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, You edited Some of my comments on Kate Lawlers page a couple of months ago. I wasn't sure why, as they were all factually correct, I left a comment in Discussions, but you haven't noticed. Kate has recetly posted on her kerrang wall that her show is the biggest rated show on Kerrang, I would have edited that in, but I fear you'd just edit it out.
[edit] Lawlers Djing career
kate's clubbing career has been going on for some years now, I thought I would mention it. I didn't really think it was contentious, so didn't add sources. Here are some:
http://www.toolroomrecords.co.uk/artists/kate-lawler http://www.framed-records.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/essentialmix/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20080705 http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/213/31809958.jpg http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/exclusive-interview-kate-lawler-interview-on-radio/fqFtsTolW6WY9hPhhtjP2g
Also her show at Kerrang does start at 15.00 hours nowadays, just check the radio-listings.
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong it's my first attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 ( talk)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (16,032 bytes) (→Reception: It did not. It included it in an apparently comprehensive list of shared-world anthology series that weren't spun off from media/gaming properties) (undo)
Heroes in Hell discussion - If you read the paragraph, it starts off with the most famous SCI FI shared worlds (Star Trek and Dr. Who - suspect since no mention of Star Wars and many other SF SWs), then lists the most famous Horror - Lovecraft Cthulhu Mythos, then lists 14 Fantasy SWs. The next paragraph mentions 1 gaming SW - Dragonlance. The list of 14 is not comprehensive, it is a judgement from a reputable source on famous SW in the Fantasy genre since it is an encyclopedia about FANTASY. I take offense at the insinuation I am a liar - I was merely trying to establish notability by the company the work keeps from a reputable source. I have restated the sentence to re-assert this fact hopefully more to your liking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean to slight your efforts and, in my opinion, extensive research into this matter through my proposals. I just wanted to reach a consensus on this before it got out of hand. Some editors have mentioned that it might be possible to provide the actual contract via scans. Would you be receptive to reconsidering your position depending on what rights were written on there? Honestly, I do not think it is important to explain the difference between first serial and reprint in this case when the differences do not seem substantial. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've given this some thought. I highly doubt we are going to arrive at a consensus on the discussion page, and I presume the page will be the subject of edit warring in the future between you and other editors. So, I've opened up a dispute resolution page. Maybe there we can clear this up. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Gee, I thought this issue was settled. I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view, the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challenged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview he cited; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy and credibility of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into.
I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 ( talk • contribs)
So I gather Sarah Young was deleted because a similar article was deleted long ago? I thought it was both notable, and sourced, but I guess because of its history here, I need to go through the additional stuff at WP:DRV?
That part aside, I don't think it should redirect to Cloud Cult; there are at least three Sarah Young's more notable than her. Also, shouldn't what links here been checked first? I don't think any of them are related to Cloud Cult. -- Juventas ( talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like you to read the post that Ms Morris just made to my talk page. This is not an invitation to have a dispute with her there; rather, it is an invitation to look at what she says when she does not feel (rightly or otherwise) that she is being persecuted.
Leaving aside her comment about you 'having an agenda', which is a statement I will ask her to retract, I feel that you and she have the common goal of improving Wikipedia's information about the HoH series. As such, you should be able to cooperate. Okay? DS ( talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI It's nice you have so much time on your hands, but please leave wikipedia. We don't need damn fools editing here. Your net contribution is far too negative. The BALLS you have (!) wasting tens, perhaps hundreds of people's time over a minor technical dispute. HAVE YOU NO SHAME??? When in doubt, remember WP:IAR, which far too many editors don't understand! If you're arguing... you're acting wrong. GROW UP. // Fra nkB 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up. I would have missed it if you hadn't mentioned it to me. Cordova829 ( talk) 04:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you fair warning that you are teetering very close to violating WP:3RR on Heroes in Hell. I know this discussion is long and plodding, but getting yourself blocked over this publication debacle is not really worth it. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice the similarity between these edits?: [97], [98], and the fact that those statements are tied to yet another IP's contributions? I've opened up an SPI. This is too much. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
On the talk page there's nothing about this version. The sources I used are reliable and the material is encyclopedic (per WP:BLP). You are currently removing sourced material without reason. I think you should see featured articles as Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt to understand that you're doing vandalism (and also an edit war).-- Earthh ( talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Due to the anticipated imminent arrival of Hurricane Irene, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted once this morning (Saturday), and both my area and the area where my ISP operates are expected to be subject to power outages later today, possibly extended outages. So I'm quite likely not to be editing for a while, even after I finish off storm preparations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I've {{ hat}}ted the AN/I thread. I don't see anything else useful coming from it, given that Hulcys appears to be soapboxing. I've also left her a message that her attacks against you are not acceptable, and she will stop making them.
I do, however, want to respond briefly to your comment about the proposed compromise being unacceptable. I'm going to try not to lecture, because that'd be a dick thing to do to someone who knows this as well as I do. There are some things worth being stubborn about here, but this isn't one of them. It's just not a big deal. So, regardless of whether or not you like consensus, which you seem to be the only person against, please just drop it and move on. Regardless, I am going to wash my hands of the content issue. Cheers, and have a great weekend away from Wikipedia, even if it is because of a hurricane. lifebaka ++ 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you survived the storm okay. Whenever you come back, Guarddog2 has posted some extensive comments on her userpage to which I've responded (see User talk: Guarddog2#Clarification as requested by Qwyrxian). I, Jethrobot also commented to me about those points on my talk page (see User talk:Qwyrxian#Guarddog2. It is my opinion that, while her story is not a definitive answer, it is, at least, believable. As such, I don't believe we have enough evidence to firmly block her as a duck of Harmonia1.
Also, as I mentioned in both places, I never actually looked at the pages in question or the DRN associated with HIH. I don't have too much time to do so now, but if there is something specific that you believe I can assist on, I will try to do so. As you'll see, one thing I said to Guarddog2 is that even though I think that there is insufficient connection to the prior Janet Morris case to justify action on that end, the general atmosphere, which may indicate off-wiki collusion, may still be enough of a problem to warrant further action. So let me know if there's something you'd like help monitoring, or discussing, or whatever. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"By longstanding and unmistakeable consensus, IAFD is not an acceptable source for such content in a BLP"
Link? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CanuckMike (
talk •
contribs)
15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for you comment on BLP Notice page. I thoroughly agree with your sentiments. What can we do to improve the celebrity BLP's overall? Are to forums where these types of issues are being discussed. I would like to actively participate. -- BweeB ( talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I am curious as to why you removed some info from Shriya Saran. Is it not proper to talk about the people that the subject is or has dated, especially if they are not married? That is certainly a big part of "personal life", no? Can you point me to some guidelines on what to, and what to not, include? BollyJeff || talk 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback - your contributions to this article have been mentioned in this report. thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You said unsourced. I found it in Teri Weigel's article first and also in Ursula Buchfellner's article including a reference (IMDB).
You also said unimportant. I fail to see how it's less important than being first xxx-born pm or first pm born in the 4/.../90s or first pm w/o pubic hair/with a tattoo. But of course YYMV.
Would it make sense to add her to "Notable Playmates" section like Teri Weigel? After all, Ursula has also done some b-movie work. 79.222.24.179 ( talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Why did you undo my changes to the JWOWW article, specifically citing the source as a problem? She describes the incident in that video and there are multiple episodes of the series where she has had similar bathroom issues. Furthermore, why is it that incontinence "lacks encyclopedic significance"? Is there some new Wikipedia guideline against taboo subject matter? KlappCK ( talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
before undoing edits, please check what you are undoing. do you believe "candice" does not have any surname? what about the information i added to the persondata? that is obviously useful and doesn't require a reference since it's already in the article. guess you thought i was a new user, then please note: not every edit by a new user is vandalism. Durchschnittspornöse ( talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You are currently doing an edit war. One of the rule states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." First, there is no consensus to remove that material; it is sourced by reliable sources and is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. So why remove it? The article needs to be improved, and removing sourced material improves nothing. With your version there are things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). Having been told he supported Obama's candidacy in the 2008 election, what does it add to the reader's understanding that he and his bandmates wore Obama T-shirts at one ceremony? Second, a the peer review there is a consensus to keep that content. Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate, so you have to expose your reasons at the peer review if you don't agree with the consensus. This version represents consensus among editors therefore I will revert one more time.-- Earthh ( talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
What you said here - well, I'm not going to address the topic of fairness to the late Brian Thomsen, but I do think that it is not the wisest choice for "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" to criticize other people for editing Wikipedia under pseudonyms. I politely suggest that you redact or retract that portion of your post. DS ( talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hullaballoo I do believe that we both want the same thing - the best WP article possible. I truly hope you are willing to tone down the rhetoric and bring this discussion back to a civil discourse. 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 02:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. We need to find common ground. Feelings are being hurt, and egos are being bruised, and it's not good for anyone's blood pressure. Can we agree, at least, that we all want the best possible article on the subject? 96.255.31.106 ( talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
We is you and I. I am the same person - had some IT issues at work, so my IP address must have changed. I believe the statement that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" is factually inaccurate, because, if you look at the copyright data again, you will notice that the Rebels in Hell creation date is 1985, while the IASFM serial creation date is 1986. Also, the first review of the complete work, Rebels in Hell, from which GITO was excerpted, was published four months before the IASFM excerpt was published. So the complete book existed well before the first serial, and was available in advance for review as was the norm back in mid-1980's. 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
HW, you express how frustrated you are at being contradicted by a number of editors. Have you ever thought that maybe all these "really mean" people are also frustrated with you because you are, for whatever reason, insisting on posting inaccurate information on pages that discuss books and stories that mean a great deal to us? I have personally been reading the Heroes in Hell series since it first came out, along with the Thieves' World books and The Sacred Band stories and characters that evolved from TW.
I'm not sure why you are so intransigent about trying to make sure no one thinks Bob Silverberg and Greg Benford actually wrote their Heroes in Hell stories for the series itself, but that is what actually happened.
HW: The above comment is the one YOU made when editing the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. It doesn't require any interpretation - the meaning is obvious. Since you are so devout a believer in sourcing information, would you mind posting the source of the "review" by the "Hugo-nominated reviewer" and the "Hugo-nominated zine" so that others may see what the source actually says and by whom it was said and when? Considering how you parsed the statements by Robert Silverberg when you wrote the imaginative description on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, this review could easily be about Felix the Cat. In 1986, the only "zines" were mimeographed on colored paper and passed out by hand, so I would be very interested in exactly when this review was written. I have offered to provide you scans of the rights pages of all 12 volumes of the original Heroes in Hell series so you can see for yourself that no attribution to any other publication was needed when the volumes were printed, but you appear not to be interested in anything that might refute your interpretation of how the publishing industry defines terms of art; or is it because you know you can't get away with accusing Baen of incompetence or malfeasance in attribution issues in 12 different books? Hulcys930 ( talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Every author agreed to that clause when they signed their contracts to participate in Heroes in Hell -- including Silverberg and Benford -- that all stories submitted to Heroes in Hell would be original works never sold or published elsewhere, written in the shared universe/world of Heroes in Hell, based on the rules of that universe. That is a fairly common expectation/contract term for authors writing in any specific shared universe/world, so why are you so adamant that it did NOT apply to Silverberg and Benford regarding Heroes in Hell?
It is absolutely amazing that of all the editors involved in this dispute YOU are the only one who has any real understanding of the publishing industry and its standards and practices. Did I miss your bibliography? Every time anyone tries to correct your misunderstanding of a publishing term, you immediately and insultingly discount everything they have said and then fall back to your position that reality does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. So, in other words, creating a particular reality in the pages of Wikipedia that applies nowhere else is all that is important to you - regardless of the actual events, contracts controlling a situation, or any other reality involved in the subject matter. You focus on minutia you can attack as not being accurate while baldly stating that accuracy is not important to Wikipedia. Your insistence on manipulating information for your own purposes is one of the reasons why most college students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia as a source for anything they turn in to their professors. That is really a shame because the original concept of Wikipedia is terrific and, unfortunately, very idealistic - they just didn't take into account petty dictators who believe if they argue loud enough and long enough, everyone who disagrees with them eventually will just give up (usually because they have lives) so the dictator wins based on "the last person standing" criteria and the truth is the only real victim. Hulcys930 ( talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The difference between you and all the "Morris-clique" editors you decry is that you are trying to post incorrect information about the Heroes in Hell series, while others are trying to change the pages back to reflect what actually happened, even though you view the situation from the exact opposite position, when you, in fact, do not really know what happened and seem to be making the mistake of many prosecutors: decide what you believe first and then look for evidence to back up that theory, rather than trying to find out what really happened. I am literally at a loss as to how to resolve this dispute when no matter what anyone tells you and no matter how many ways the situation is explained, you completely discount anything I or any other editors say who disagree with you, and refuse to even consider any information presented that does not back up how you view the situation. I know you realize that you can find any information you wish to somewhere on the web; but just because you can find something three places does not mean it is correct.
I, personally, deeply apologize for any unkind language or accusations I have made against you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and promise never to engage in such language in the future. (Really, I don't practice witchcraft.) It would be good if you could look at information, furnished by the editors whom you feel have been persecuting you, with a fresh eye, without hearing a sneering or condescending tone in what is being said, even though I know you really feel justified in completely dismissing everything said by people whom you consider to be "single purpose editors" -- although I don't really understand why you assume those editors would automatically have nefarious intentions since they are obviously only interested in something about which they feel deeply... I will also see if it is possible to furnish you with some information you would consider truthful. Would a scan of the rights (permissions) page of every Heroes in Hell book help? Maybe there would be a way I could post the jpegs of each page somewhere you could access them. I'd probably have to get permission from an administrator or something, but it still might be possible. Please let me know. Hulcys930 ( talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The above comment was made one week ago and received no response; there also was no change in the "tone" of the editing commentary. I removed the apology since it had obviously done no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC) In looking so hard for "evidence" of "promotional editing" and parsing every single statement made trying to find inconsistencies on which to pounce, you are missing the point entirely: the WP pages need to reflect reality accurately. That is all anyone wants, no matter how hard you try to convince other editors and administrators that every change made to any of the related pages is an attempt to use WP for promotional purposes. It would be really nice if you could just move on and become obsessed with something else. The pages now all reflect a neutral, chronological publishing history, regardless of who suggested it or who agreed or disagreed with the wording. Please leave it the way Lifebaka suggested it be worded.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I wrote the post on Luci Thai and learned that it has been deleted. She is an award nominated pornographic actress, which to me would mean she is notable. AVN is the industry standard for achievement and performance awards and she was nominated for the Best New Starlet award. I don't understand how this doesn't classify her as notable person. Any assistance you can provide, along with what I should have added in addition to my sources in order to keep her page posted on the site would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
After a lengthy conversation with the IP editor (who showed me publishing contracts from the 1980s, which are not for public consumption), I can say that there are three ways to read the situation:
However, that third instance involves terms of art which I believe you may not be interpreting correctly. This is the problem with terms of art: they can sometimes have meanings which are completely counter-intuitive. Can we agree that the third instance is the preferred one? DS ( talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh my! You might want to take that crystal ball back to where you bought it, because it keeps giving you bad information. Neither I, nor any of the other writers in Lawyers in Hell, signed a "work-for-hire" contract with Ms. Morris. I spent several decades working on contracts (Publishing, IP, Mergers and Acquisitions, Collective Bargaining, etc.) with lawyers, so I am very aware of the provisions of any contract I sign on my own behalf. (Yes, I DO know what a work-for-hire contract is and I would not sign one regarding an intellectual property.)
So, where you charge me with making "baseless accusations", are you now saying you are NOT attempting to prove Mr. Silverberg wrote GITO independently of the Heroes in Hell series, then sold it to Ms. Morris later, and that it just happened to be printed in Asimov's shortly before the anthology was released? I thought that was one of your main contentions regarding these articles. I could have sworn you said:
I'm pretty sure that in the above statements, you insist Mr. Silverberg did not write GITO for Heroes in Hell because he had used Gilgamesh as a character in a prior novel (I guess the other two stories don't matter because they did not win Hugos) and that the appearance of his stories in the Heroes in Hell series constitute "reprints" which to most readers means "this story was written for publication elsewhere and later the author was paid by [this publication] to "reprint" their story and it was not changed substantially to fit in with the rest of the [publication]." However, Mr. Silverberg himself said the following:
Now, HW, to me this sounds like Mr. Silverberg is saying
This is from the same source you used to "prove" the exact opposite of what Mr. Silverberg says. So, no, I'm not engaging in the "persistent invention of baseless accusations" in this matter. I will be very interested to see how you attempt to overturn the information in your favorite source that contradicts completely your theory of how GITO came about and its relation to the Heroes in Hell series. Hulcys930 ( talk) 07:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I put this on the Heroes in Hell (book) page and post it here in the hopes that this will add to the distinction between "originally published" and "first serial." My comments follow: By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mr. Ollie have done [2]on the Heroes in Hell series article, the Heroes in Hell anthology article, and Robert Silverberg's "Giglamesh in the Outback" articles, HW and Mr Ollie repeat the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and b) confuses a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." [3], p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form, or when a magazine is the acquiring publisher. However, to use it to refer to a first serial of part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a first-serial publication, in my opinion using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book. It can be inferred that a publication that appears first in partial form and later in a book by the acquiring publisher is a first-serial right. As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance. The colloquial use of "original publication" may not always be precise or accurate. Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz and Mr Ollie in the latest revision of the Heroes in Hell anthology, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and as a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which I mine opinion is not verifiable at all. Dokzap ( talk) 20:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap
I'm curious to know as why a credible claim to importance is relevant in this case given that my nomination was based on criterion G4. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Jared Leto". Thank you.-- Earthh ( talk) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this document may provide illumination on certain parts of the dispute. DS ( talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Two points: 1) Janet Morris did not endorse the use of the "originally published" language - she endorsed I, Jethrobot's proposed non-controversial consensus wording where it was merely stated that GITO was published in both venues, without any attribution to originality;
The following is from Janet Morris refuting you calling me a liar:
I've collapsed a wall of text, crossposted from Guarddog2/Janet Morris's
talk page, where anyone who wants to can read it. All that it actually says about the text I cited amounts to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
I endorse WP presenting only the actual facts about the Heroes in Hell(TM) series, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's consistent misunderstanding and misstatements of the factsI was hoping never to return to this debate, however, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is now claiming I endorse positions and editions based on his positions, which are incorrect. I do not accept any statement that any story for the HIH series was "originally published" anywhere else because this is untrue and contrary to the contract between me and every writer in the series. Here are the facts about Heroes in Hell(TM), its various volumes and stories printed elsewhere which must be correctly stated. I am aware that WP has a BLP ongoing. I prefer not to participate in any more endless debates, but to say here for the record that my rights and the rights of approximately 34 writers are being misstated by HW and potentially damaged when "originally published" is used to indicate that a story from Heroes in Hell had a first serial or promotional inclusion elsewhere. Heroes in Hell is a shared universe series, which means certain intellectual property belongs to the series and to me as its proprietary/editor, such as milieu and characters created for the series. The contract under which the books were written for me and my contract with Baen Books for the 20th century volumes of HIH stipulates that all stories commissioned by me and guided by me and created for my series by ALL authors are to be original and written to take place in and include the Heroes in Hell series milieu and concept, which is my intellectual property, created by me and subsequently contributed to by the various writers in full understanding of their contract terms and conditions. For this reason, the Baen Books volumes cite no permissions and no earlier publications on the copyrights pages and each clearly states that each book is a "Baen Books Original." This is legal and correct in terms that Simon & Schuster accepts and the US Copyright Law accepts because THE STORIES ARE CREATED FOR AND ORIGINAL TO the HIH series. The placement of first serials or free promotional placement (as in the case of the story Baslieus, which I co-wrote) in magazines or other books in no way clouds or diminishes the fact that each story was commissioned by me and created under my direction as an original story for my shared universe series, or that every author signed the same contract, each author warranting that the story I commissioned and which each author delivered would be an original story. Nor does such promotional publication diminish the requirement that the Heroes in Hell characters and milieu created by me and others belongs to the series as a whole. The Library of Congress "original" copyright date for each volume (listed under the volume and my name and thereafter including the names of the other writers) is as much as a year before the publication date. For Rebels in Hell this copyright office date is 1985. Any attempt to prove primacy based on dates of availability is immaterial and doomed to fail because of the lag time between original copyright date and publication. By US contract law and publishing law, all stories written for HIH series were required to be original to the series and one look at the volumes' rights pages proves this by the lack of permissions citations required thereon. Any "editor" should know this, whether a Wikipedia editor or any other kind of editor. If you apply the standards HW is attempting to apply to establishing GITO's "original" publication (a nonstandard term and an immaterial term in any case), every other book and story in WP should be immediately subject to the same extensive scrutiny and potential revision of their WP pages. Since in the mid-1980s it was common for portions of as-yet unpublished books to be included in other books or magazines with earlier publication dates (even including other books by other authors) in order to promote upcoming book releases, and this was often done by verbal agreement, thousands of titles would have to be re-investigated if WP wants to prove "original" publication status for each and every case. On the WP page about Gilgamesh in the Outback (GITO), which exists because the story is Nebula Award nominated and Hugo Award winning, focus should be maintained on the version that won the award, which was the version created under my direction for Rebels in Hell and submitted to me as original and purchased by me as original, and also first-serialized in IASFM. If any Silverberg quotations are added, they should be those that explain that in order to compile his 3 HIH stories into a volume to be sold by him outside the series, he was obligated to remove the proprietary HIH material to avoid copyright violation issues. Since by doing so, the GITO story in Silverberg's resulting novel was no longer the award-winning version, discussing this novelized version of GITO on a page dedicated to the award-winning version at all is discursive. I suggest, since all problems have solutions, that a simpler and less controversial wording be adopted, or correct publishing terminology be used. Perhaps it could be said that story X was published in magazine X AND book x, and avoid the issue of applying non-standard publishing language altogether. The sequentiality issue is the problematic one. Or use correct publishing terminology, such as "Published in X book on A date and first-serialized in Y magazine on B date. In closing: I endorse none of HW's edits or statements or selective quotations on the topic of Heroes in Hell series and its stories, which statements and edits are at best confused and at worst misleading. Guarddog2 ( talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC) 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |
and 2) I am sure you can find 10,000 examples of where a story was created and sold first to a venue such as Asimov's, and was there "published originally". But I am equally sure you could probably find 2,000 examples for every 10,000, where that is not the case, i.e. where the story was created for another publisher to be included in a book or anthology and sold as a subsidiary right, to be published in a venue like Asimov's under the first serial definition provided in the SFWA documment. For example, if Tom Clancy sells his new book, "The Sum of All Nightmares" to Putnam, and then the New York Times publishes a first serial full chapter excerpt two weeks prior to book release, by your definition, the New York Times is the "original publisher", since the excerpt came chronologically first. Only the contracts between author and publisher can provide verifiability beyond a shadow of a doubt in these cases, where the bibliographic evidence is incomplete.
In this case, we have provided DS with the exact contract language that ALL the original 19 Heroes in Hell franchise authors signed. GITO was commissioned to be written within a specific milieu i.e. the Heroes in Hell shared universe per the franchise agreement for the book "Rebels in Hell", and not as a standalone work. Only BAEN Books has the right to claim that it is the original publisher. They bought the primary rights under an advance and royalty contract. First serial rights are addressed in that contract (per the provided definition - publication "prior to" book release). GITO in this instance is an excerpt from the book. It is a chapter of the anthology to be taken as a part of the whole. Were this not the case, then how do you explain this statement in the Heroes in Hell contract which every author signed: "The author represents that the story is original and has never been published in any form." If that is not the case, as you are claiming, then you are in fact accusing Silverberg, Benford, and all the other authors who exercised their first serial rights as delineated in the Heroes in Hell contract of fraud, since by your definition they created the works "originally" for Asimov's or any other magazine used to advertise the upcoming book and lied when they signed their Heroes in Hell contracts. Look at the creation dates in the copyright information. Rebels in Hell was created in 1985. The Asimov's Magazine issue with the book excerpt was created in 1986. So the book pre-exists the magazine article. Chronological availability of a product to purchase is meaningless in this instance. You can see why so many respected authors are upset with your insistence on using general language bibliographic definitions instead of defining specific terms of art used in the publishing industry for the WP readership. I am sure you were just trying to write the best possible article with the information you had available to you, but please correct these oversights now that you have verification of the actual contract terms. I know you have stated in the past that the WP readership would not understand these terms of art, and that is why you are so adamant against using them, but I'm sure a well written article commissioned to explain them simply, could enlighten and educate all of us. WP is an encyclopedia after all. 96.255.31.106 ( talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one thinking that these two accounts at the Noel Ashman bio are the same person? Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noel Ashman 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/Noel Ashman 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. I've provided this courtesy notification as one of the significant contributors to the article. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 23:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You removed all of the references from this article and then tagged it as unreferenced. I've added some references back to the article. In the future, please don't delete references from reliable sources. Pburka ( talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you let me know your thinking for deleting the references to the charities Kelly Hu has worked for? The links to the actual charities and other references are included. In the comment you said they were promotional - did you object to promoting the charities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgrudd ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi I am still new to Wiki and have been activley participating in doing Wiki updates and adding new articles, I would like some guidance on an article that I wrote that had a significant amount of references as well the individual was a part of something Significant in Military History. It was deleted repeatedly and I saw the notes I changed it made edits then the same administrator submitted it for deletion again and said the person is not notable..please help with this? this is in regard to an article marked Kimberly J. Bowles that was deleted today. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpreneurgoddess ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Re your edit here. The statement is a verified fact, the usage of 'gossip' at the BLP policy page states:
The information is verifiable/true/reliable (confirmed by other party) and in my opinion a star's social and personal life is indeed relevant to the depth of their media coverage. When I randomly thought of and looked at some other actors' articles - ( Hugh Jackman, Kristen Stewart, Emma Watson, Scarlett Johansson, Julia Roberts) - they all have extensive personal life sections which usually detail their romances and/or marriages. One man's gossip is another man's news...perhaps interested editors could weigh in on Talk:Emma Roberts with their thoughts? Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I would like to request your opinion if the tags on the article are appropriate within the guidelines of an article appearing here. I have a lot of changes I have been working on with Microsoft Word, but this page feels like a internet fan page and not an encyclopedic article. Also I am requesting a response on my page as your talk page is full of 500 plus entries which freezes my internet browser. Thank you for understanding. And please consider archiving your talk page if it has not already been discussed help from other parties on Wikipedia is out there, just ask and they will help you archive your page for you. JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know what "violation" you are talking about when deleting the picture I uploaded. In fact, the self-portrait drawn by Ditko is a non-free image, and I have uploaded other non-free images (under a fair rationale use) to other artists infoboxes and never had a problem with any editor or administrators. I think we should resolve our dispute here, because I'm sure that the photo uploaded does not infringe any terms of use in Wikipedia, but if you think I'm wrong, feel free to let me know your reasons. Thanks. Fma12 ( talk) 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Curious, what did you mean by "Kardashian mold" at the AFD for the community college professor? None of the names at Kardashian seem to me to make sense, and I strongly suspect that you're not referring to Kardash. Please either reply at my talk or leave a talkback. Nyttend ( talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Shilpa Shetty, you may be blocked from editing. Remember, if you disagree about the inclusion of sourced content for any other reason, use the talk page and discuss its redundancy. Shahid • Talk2me 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well Times of India generally is regarded as one of the more reputable Indian sources. I agree that the mafia coverage was excessive but I think it is worthy of mentioning briefly. For me atleast if an issue has been widely covered in reliable sources then that makes it worthy of inclusion, otherwise its seems like censorship. Personally I think the BLP issue at times can be overexaggerated because if claims are supported with multiple sources then we can't really be to blame for it. You have a point though about excess tabloid fodder, but in this case I wouldn't exactly call it that. I mean I see a lot of real crap in articles about some celebrities dog and some people think its notable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You're really beginning to piss me off with your ridiculous BLP "gossip" "tabloid" claims. Personal life and dating somebody for 4 years for instance is perfectly relevant. Especially when they are referenced to reliable sources. Why don't you do something useful for a change? Its damaging actually what you are doing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This time the case has gone in your favour, as I myself actually don't see the neccessity of the mafia section and have no intentions of protecting it. Having said that, your conduct has been continuously disruptive on Wikipedia. You always remove sourced info, which is often essential. You will have to learn to use the talk page when necessary. I see you have once been blocked already for disruptive editing. Next time I see something as inappropriate as I've seen so far, your case will be taken to WP:Arbitration, where a full report of your history and conduct will be filed. Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 09:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Did you actually find the article on another Wiki or did you base your argument on the concept of notability via other Wikis? I can't find it anywhere but I'm assuming it's on Russian Wikipedia and the different alphabet is just throwing me off the scent. OlYeller21 Talktome 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain how the line "biggest hoax of recent times" an exaggeration of cited source? Please note that the line has been taken from the source itself with no exaggeration/addition/modification done by me. Boolyme बूलीमी Chat बोलो!! 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
My edits, stating the model’s real name Stephanie Schick were undone with comment “unsourced at best…”. The real name, however, is true fact and can be found, for instance, on the IMDB or is stated on other language WP, see Pandora Peaks. What is required to validate my edits? — Pendethan ( talk) 13:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is funny that someone like this has a Wikipedia article. Just wanted to add my 2 cents! :) - Marty2Hotty ( talk) 17:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I was taken by surprise about your removal of the information about his relationship with Jana Julie Kilka from the "Personal life" section, labeling it as "outdated gossip" and saying that it didn't have significance.
What criterion should we use for including something under "Personal life"? Because I think a personal relationship is way more relevant that his childhood pets (something that you kept on your edition), and I think the sources were better than the youtube videos used as sources for the pet facts.
And well, being an actor, and being about who he is dating, it seems logical that most, if not all, the sources that refer to this are gonna be tabloids. What kind of sources should we use for it not to be qualifiable as gossip?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, you have been helpful in the past. I have a question and worked on creating the Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy article. It's a film but I'm not quite sure how to upload a low resolution photo. The photo is available on the movie's Facebook page and I reduced the quality significantly: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4289/ecstasy7.jpg - I would like to have this as the poster on the page. I went to Partition (2007 film)'s picture page and it shows that pictures that are low resolution for movies can be added on. I was wondering if you can upload it and attach it on the page. Thanks again for your help. - Marty2Hotty ( talk) 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was able to upload the photo through the help pages. I used a poster, which I read, meets the Wikipedia guidelines for "non-free" - commercial posters or something to that extent. Learning something new everyday! - Marty2Hotty ( talk) 06:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
To: Hullabalooo Wolfowitz
Re: Victoria Principal
I was surprised that you edited out all information about Victoria Principal's marriage to Harry Glassman. On her Wiki page, all it states is that she remarried in 1985 and divorced in 2006.
I don't know why she [or you] for that matter are trying to downplay the fact that she was married to one of Beverly Hill's most noted plastic surgeons but you deleted that.
As for his arrest for domestic violence, see the following links:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0066117/
http://tv.yahoo.com/victoria-principal/contributor/840865/bio
I included in my edit that charges were never filed by her and that she vehemently denied any allegations of spousal abuse. I didn't even include the fact that she was admitted to Cedars-Sinai after his arrest.
I also have the Redbook Magazine wherein she states that she and Glassman decided not to have children as it would mar her body contradicted by her statements in a Lifetime Intimate Portrait where she says that she was unable to have children -- both of which were duly referenced in my edit.
You wrote in undoing these edits: lacks references required for content of this sort in living person's biography; Undid revision 457429063 by Lisa kristin1 (talk)) (undo)
Why undo edits that were perfectly valid and you could have checked out for yourself? I didn't write one thing that was not true about Ms. Principal and you had no business removing it.
lisakristin1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa kristin1 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Due to the imminent arrival of the wast coast snowstorm, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted several times this afternoon (Saturday), and both my area and the area where my ISP operates are expected to be subject to power outages later today, possibly extended outages. So I'm quite likely not to be editing for a while, even after we clear out the fallen trees, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
WikiMedal for Janitorial Services | ||
I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services for continually cleaning out the nonsense clogging the gutters. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
Also, on an unrelated note, I would kindly propose that you might want to do some archiving of your talk page. Cheers again! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed you deleted the page on Rhonda Rydell. Beside having not being informed (according to normal procedure in Wiki) of the deletion, I was not able to take part to the discussion. IMHO motivation appears somehow arguable: despite having only 2 movies and few appearance I recall (and it is in my user page) Jimbo's idea of wikipedia: free access to information, and I might agree that my article on Albiruni or on other economic topics are much more interesting and "encyclopedic". again IMHO the motivations adduced apprear not to be solid ground as principle for deletion. What I mean is that I have found other 30+ wiki-pages of biographies with less than Rhonda Rydell's content and references. As I did not have been informed in the deletion procedure, can I ask you to review your decision according to [Wikipedia:DRV] wiki deletion review procedure? She has over 1.4 million pages linking to her, despite she retired in 1998, she has an interesting story behind. She is not famous for the Confidence Man (very few know about this) , but she was well know before. Cheers The Lone Ranger Hit me with a good one! 12:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I had previously declined a G4 speedy. Obviously we disagree over whether it has been changed enough. I said in the edit summary I would send it to AfD, but I think it would be singularly awkward for I will probably want to support keeping on the basis of the club ownership. Perhaps you should do the AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is a completely an advert and "unsalvageably promotional". The proof of it is another article made in sep 2011 which was speedily deleted by Fastily under G11-- Habib Construction Services Pvt. Ltd..The same article has been copy pasted and used here with minor changes. See] this for the page on 20 sep 2011. Moreover it has a lack of notability because it finds no mention in news articles, see this.Do pardon my audacity. Vivekananda De --tAlK 03:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
==
Sockpuppetry case==
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a
sockpuppetry case. Please refer to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Erpert
Who is this guy? |
Wanna talk about it?
03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop deleting perfectly legitimate edits I have made on the FDA and IBTS pages. Everything I have posted is referenced and is certainly not "axe grinding" as you dismissively claim. The ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood in these countries is a matter of great controversy and the agencies concerned have been heavily criticised for following such policies. It's only right then that this should be recorded on the pages concerned, and just because you may approve of the bans or believe they should not be controversial does not alter this reality. I believe you are being deliberately disruptive, having twice deleted my edits. PinkPolitico80 ( talk) 03:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC) PinkPolitico80
Hi , we you please give some feedback at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amy Daly - thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Only warning. Cease defending anti-Semites, or you will be punished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needback2 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a short note from a totally uninvolved editor (I'm not voting here and have no history with either the candidate or with you). I think you've gone over the borderline of civil/uncivil; I appreciate the points you're trying to make, but the language in which you're making them is too strongly confrontational. Maybe you had a particularly bad day, but perhaps an apology for some of your word / phrase choices might be in order. Things like "That's some of the most shameless and awful wikilawyering I've ever seen", and "One was so plainly a porn source that the most blithering of idiots could not have mistaken it." It's going too far to say that an editor is worse than "the most blithering of idiots". I'm sure a couple of words of apology would be in order. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, will expand my efforts to include the more mundane areas, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. We may cross paths at AFD discussions in the future... sometimes in agreement about a keep or a delete, and sometimes not... but as it is inappropriate, I will never use the mop to close any where we both have commented, I will respect consensus, and I will avoid closing any if consensus one way or t'other is not quite clear. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The cornerstone of Ankit Fadia's career was that at age 16 the U.S. Government asked him to decrypt a steganographic message from Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, no one has collaborated this statement, the branch of the U.S. Government that does code cracking is the National Security Agency, they are the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and they are one of the largest consumers of electricity in Maryland, likely to run their acres of code cracking supercomputers, they don't need to call 16 year old foreign national to break messages from Al Qaeda.
There has been no confirmation that Al Qaeda has used steganography as that would confirm sources and techniques of intelligence gathering, the only reporter that wrote something about Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and steganography was Jack Kelley of USA Today who was let go for fictionalizing his stories. Now when you take the story from MiD Day, which was in both their print and online editions, and posted on Ankit Fadia's website, Fadia mentions that "The agencies had tracked some emails where few people were frequently exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne They had used technography to send messages." While MiD Day likely transcribed technography as Steganography this would have been impossible in the days or even months after the 9/11 attacks as Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002.
There is no computer security technology called technography but steganography which allows users to hide messages in pictures, video and sound files. News reports that Fadia has been quoted in over the years have him deciphering this message from Osama bin Laden's men in the months after 9/11, a few source this as happening in November 2001, and now he's saying that these groups were exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne in November 2001 when Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002. I am not going to say this whole story is a lie, but given that he's repeated this story over and over again, adding new things here, how does this not qualify as biographical information when its published online and the dates don't mesh.
From his own website - http://www.ankitfadia.in/who_is_ankit_fadia.html - In November 2001, Fadia was consulted by a classified intelligence agency for breaking an encrypted message sent by one of Osama Bin Laden's men.
Cracking the Code - http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/youth/article49478.ece?homepage=true - after the September 11 attacks, the U.S Government found some encrypted mails. The mails apparently had only pictures and no text accompanying them. “The pictures followed the steganography pattern where in photographs with embedded messages are used. I gave a few suggestions on decoding them. It was exciting as I was only 16 then. They usually never give any feedback as it is classified information but since I received a few projects even after that I feel I have been of use at some level,” smiles the 24-year-old.
Don't you find it the least bit odd about Fadia mentioning Avril Lavigne pictures in this story? Doesn't this qualify in the same league as having the second best hacking site by the FBI when there has never been any list to that effect?
Please reconsider the undid with this information.
Thanks!
Shawn Fynn ( talk) 09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Instead of repeatedly removing long standing and cited content, could please explain your actions on the talk page. You may have a point, but declaring something as "not legitimate" really doesn't explain anything and sounds like just an opinion. Regardless of whether it was a 'legitimate' award, or not, it would seem to me that Stonewall's response to Moyles in regard to the events being discussed are notable and relevant. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the "attack" award from the appropriate BLP articles. Wasn't there something similar to this at the Sean Hannity BLP page about adding misinformer of the year award to his bio? I fully support your efforts and applaud your fairness. -- 68.9.119.69 ( talk) 03:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Please take a second look at this discussion. Some additional avenues of resolution have been proposed, but the discussion is currently at a loggerhead. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not remove material under a misleading edit summary. You know well that the BLPN agreed that content could be decided on an article by article basis and certainly not removed across all articles as you claim. Discuss it on the talk page and if you use misleading edit summaries again I will ask for your behaviour to be examined. Your action on the Iris Robinson article does you no credit. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Leaky Caldron 00:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. You know very well that no consensus has been reached for the removal of this, both on this article and in BLPN generally. Despite being urged to, you have also declined to join the discussion regarding it on the article talk page. Your continued insistence on removing, against consensus, is therefore disruptive and your edit summaries are at best deliberately misleading. Consensus is against you on this matter. I ask you to accept this rather than continued edit warring. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note, I reinstated mention of the "award" simply because I found that it was also reported in the Guardian. I don't understand what the controversy is. The paragraph talks about Stonewall and their criticism toward Moyles and it's unfit to also mention they gave him a mock award when it's reported by reliable sources? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop. I don't like requesting blocks on genuine editors, but your behaviour is disruptive.
People have been very patient with you. Edit Chris Moyles once more in this manner without consensus and I will request you are blocked. For everyone's benefit, please, accept that consensus is against you on this one and move on. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice of an RfC for a page on which you have been an editor. If you wish to participate, the discussion is taking place here. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. A user has contested the deletion of Veronika Zemanová on my talk page. Since you nominated the page for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 10:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you removed some pics from Colton Ford with the above edit summary. I couldn't care less whether they are there or not, but was curious as to why use would be justified on a standalone page but not as part of merged discography. (Those images got there because articles on the individuals were merged away.) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
While I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person this article meets a criteria of WP:NF... and that it does have coverage... I agree that its current tone is problematic. And while often adressable, I ask that you take a look at this edit and understand that I agreee that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hulla. I appreciate very much you fighting the tabloid-ery there. On a separate subject, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Demi Moore about her parents' birth certificate, and I hope you'll join. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
TransporterMan ( TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Why did you remove File:Mike branson.jpg? I know he is still a living person, but he has been inactive since 1998 or 1999. Per WP:NFC#UUI, he retired from porno business. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Should I contest the "speedy" tag that you put? I have added "non-free fair use in" tag. Why was this tagged? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that it is fowled up, and not to be rude, but it doesn't really help the predicament.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 01:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz regards and love
You are a senior than me in Wikipedia but You also have certain limitations and I am sorry to say that yopu are not and Indian so You don't even Indian celebs . Its a major fact of her Biography and changes are really very sad because you are barring useful information to the page viewers of page Sanaya_Irani .
We know the small to small details about her ( Sanaya_Irani) and I had given the informations according to unbiased and resourceful materials. I am again edting the page and please do reply me in this and please do understand to which country you velongs i can't edit that country's celebrity page and as i do not know i didn't seen her work
so please understand the aspects of the page and i will provide all references to the indian cites of Sanaya_Irani.
again respect to you and your contributions
Saurabh kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhkr wiki ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because I overturned your wrong and unhelpful tag bomb at Chelsea Charms doesn't mean you should try to gut every edit I ever made. That's a little crazy, and you should just stop now. NewExLionTamer ( talk) 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Just examining your edits tells me a great deal. Most of your "removal of trivia" is reverted by other editors. The fact that this is so would indicate few people agree with your extreme views on personal life information. You have a point about tabloid fodder about one night stands, flings etc but long term relationships which are widely covered in rleiable sources like BBC etc are most certainly encyclopedic and meet guidelines. In fact some relationships are so well known that it would be censorship to not even mention them. If you continue to operate in this way I will consider opening an investigation and RFC investigating your disruption. There's clearly a difference between removing unsourced tabloid fodder and removing any mention of personal relationships which is sourced like you do. Wikipedia is not censored, but your views are so extreme that you even harsher than a typical censor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your views are extreme, orthodox and trolling. Have to agree with many of the above commentators. Stop trolling. Continue to overturn what you think is wrong is not really an intelligent way to operate any encyclopedic community, such as wikipedia. Seeing from history,you have a history of being blocked and called out. You make the Wikipedia community unpleasant and encourage fighting.
Your recent editing history at Linda Ronstadt shows that you have a history of editing and removing content with any discussion. I am not claiming the images "free content". Instead of reverting and editing work you should have and please consider using the article's talk pagebefore removing other people's work under your claim of removal of copyright violations. All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. If you would have taken the time to click on the photos itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007 Sharkentile ( talk) 8:49, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)
All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. CLICK ON THE PHOTOS itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007. That is FACT. Sharkentile ( talk) 9:19, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tristessa
(talk)
18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)I have closed the AN/I thread regarding your NFCC dispute, having blocked you both for 24 hours for having violated the three-revert rule. Please read my closing comments. I hope you will resolve this dispute through discussion rather than repeated reversion in future. After your block expires, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help to settle this between you. -- Tristessa (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Pro forma request. While Tristessa has unblocked, per the discussion above, an autoblock still remains in effect. With the autobloack functioning, I can't post to Tristesse's talk page. I'd prefer not to use the autoblock-specific template here due to a rather odd event that occurred after my IP address was posted publicly. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Autoblock cleared. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. It is possible to save the page "Nikolai Kurbatov"? In addition to links to livejournal, there is reference to kinopoisk.ru, rusarticles.com, pstu.ru, imdb.com, facebook.com, kinoafisha.net, infomaniya.ru ... Thanks, N-k90 ( talk) 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited Dancing Tonight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inside Out ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Please self revert in article Yoko Ono. The removal was explained and is further explained on the talk page. 174.255.112.150 ( talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at with these. Why does copyright owned by Getty Images matter? The whole point of non-free images is that permission of the copyright holder is irrelevant and unneeded. Thus saying "expressly identified as Getty Images photo" is a pointless non-rationale. If being a Getty images photo disqualifies a picture from fair use, I wouldn't have uploaded it, since as noted I did in fact "expressly identify" the copyright holder, as image uploaders should always do. Can you explain your rationale here? SnowFire ( talk) 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I looked more closely at criteria F7 which you linked to. The Dominque Strauss-Kahn image you speedy'd does in fact have "critical commentary" on the image, but it seems like my dispute is with that part of the non-free content criteria, not you. I find it utterly bizarre that Wikipedia should treat images from Getty differently from copyrighted images from an independent photographer. (And edit conflict, yeah, you posted the same thing. I still disagree but I understand your rationale at least now. Is there any explanation *why* listed anywhere?) SnowFire ( talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have posted the sourced commentary on the image itself at the file talk page, with appropriate emphasis, in case you were unable to locate it in the article. Since it is the subject of sourced commentary, at least in Perp walk, I respectfully request you either withdraw your speedy nom entirely as it is clearly invalid, or open another FfD if you believe it is because it is pretty obvious there would be a difference of opinion, as there has been on two previous occasions. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz completely trolled this article Choky Ice Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!( talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey08 ( talk • contribs)
You obviously have something against this actor CUT THE CRAP, all is well sourced especially the part where it says "career" It states the date, the name of the site etc.. I REPORTED YOU FOR VANDALISM! STOP TROLLING!!!-- LowKey08 ( talk) 03:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Calabe1992 (
talk |
contribs) |
|||
Line 4,184: | Line 4,184: | ||
This user [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] completely trolled this article [[Choky Ice]] Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LowKey08|LowKey08]] ([[User talk:LowKey08|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LowKey08|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
This user [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] completely trolled this article [[Choky Ice]] Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:LowKey08|LowKey08]] ([[User talk:LowKey08|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/LowKey08|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:I suggest you read [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NFCC]], as well as [[WP:NPOV]]. It's utterly ridiculous to describe a BLP including a large number of unreferenced quotes attributed to the article subject as "perfectly sourced". [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 02:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
:I suggest you read [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], and [[WP:NFCC]], as well as [[WP:NPOV]]. It's utterly ridiculous to describe a BLP including a large number of unreferenced quotes attributed to the article subject as "perfectly sourced". [[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz#top|talk]]) 02:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
||
You obviously have something against this actor CUT THE CRAP, all is well sourced especially the part where it says "career" It states the date, the name of the site etc.. I REPORTED YOU FOR VANDALISM! STOP TROLLING!!!--[[User:LowKey08|LowKey08]] ([[User talk:LowKey08|talk]]) 03:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC) |
Welcome to Wikipedia, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:
There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{ helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! — Cel es tianpower háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a speedy deletion is a speedy deletion. WP:CSD is very clear in this regard. These articles do not fit these criteria, so please try proposing it for deletion or putting it on AFD instead. Thanks and regards, — Cel es tianpower háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, please read the Talk pages of articles before nominating them for AfD or trying to Speedy them. The List of gay porn stars article was previously nominated for deletion and the result was "keep".— Chidom talk 12:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that an editor by the name of Hoary is very bais when it comes to deleting photographers from the fashion photography section. Just recently I added a photographer the shoots for Vogue Magazine and also has won very prestigious awards... all this information is verifiable, and referecnced. I am writing you because I see that you have stood upto this person, in the Luke Duval AFD section. Another, much more established photographer named Seth Sabal has been deleted by Hoary and this photographer, shoots for shot for Vogue; and won the same award as Luke Duval the photographer you protected from deletion. Can you please help me. Thank you Sarah PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will make citations corrections change tone to be less promotional. I know Grace personally and she used to go by Amy Gilbertson. She was in Miss America and runner up to Miss Iowa. I will site her accomplishments and also correct any inadvertent deceptions on my part. I am NOT a promoter, my name is Jeffrey Fry and am a personal friend of Ms. Sharington and thought her life noteworthy. Of course, I bow to your guidelines as you see fit to implement and thank you for your understanding and consideration. You can find me on LinkedIn and Facebook. I live in Austin, TX (jxf@austin.rr.com) is my email address and I invest and help start ups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeteye ( talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with Jenny Lynn, Raye Hollitt, Guy Lafleur, and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under WP:Fair use. fbb_fan 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The Builders and The Butchers wikipedia page. - The image that was posted was given to use with permission of the band. Why did you delete this? User:Switchbladesista11:26, 28 December 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.23.69 ( talk)
Hi there! I was wondering why you made this edit. Gallagher's drug-use in his early days is pretty widely documented – he's even had a few laughs about it during interviews. And the fact that he ripped off "Get It On" is also pretty well-known, although I agree that may have been written in a slightly POV way. But do you think that we should just remove his recreational habits from the article? I wouldn't want to start an edit war, so I just thought I'd see what you think. This paragraph states that if an allegiation is notable, verifiable and important to the article, it should not be removed. And personally, I think Gallagher using drugs was one of the best things to happen to British music – without it, Oasis would have just been some shoddy garage band :) But that's just me! Well, please let me know your thoughts. Happy editing, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara, I've forwarded the email to the PR dept giving permission for the image. Babub→ Talk 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Would have been easy to check that I wasn't libelling her. She freely admits to it on her (already linked) bio/FAQ on her site. So please don't pull out the WP:BLP too quickly. Cheers. MadMaxDog 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP says that if comments like that aren't sourced, delete immediately. Hard to see how I could act "too quickly". Please explain. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the credit card / porn star identity incident you mentioned in AnonEMouse's RFA, but I would like to take a closer look at it. Could you provide some more direct diffs related to Mouse's involvment? Dragons flight 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You were very civil, and raised appropriate points. I could hardly do less than respond, briefly at first, then in more detail when JoshuaZ asked. I can't wait for the questions! :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, CalendarWatcher reverted you here [1]. I agree with you that the merge should be done with a little more effort put into it as to what's necessary and what's not by some users familiar with the topic. I didn't understand his reasoning that 'nothing is stopping you' while merging the article making that impossible. It just sounded abrasive. I know a little about the show myself so I could possibly step in if need be, but as you said, it shouldn't be merged yet. Cheers! Cheers_Dude ( talk) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I might also like to note that this editor is running on a second chance granted by an admin in which he really should be blocked right now for recent violation of the 3RR, as shown here [2]. His editing practices are not improving and you are not the only user he has shown uncivil editing habits with as shown here [3] and here [4]. Given that he should be blocked for violation of 3RR, an admin should most definitely be contacted if he engages in edit warring or violates the 3RR again. Cheers! Cheers_Dude ( talk) 10:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
If you blank content on User:Calton again, I will block you for disruptive editing. I've already blocked your IP once, so I suggest you stop. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In relation to this edit [6], DRV is generally only for admins since they're the ones who can see the full text of the deletion pages. That being said, do you have a link for the cahce of the full text of the deleted article? I'd like to see it and offer help, if I can. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)Without proper sourcing, the subject wasn't notable. I've tried to be as helpful as I can to the author, but if you upload an unfinished, unsourced article to the mainspace, it's probably going to come back down pretty quickly. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion here and Auburn Pilot's warning a few sections above on this page, I see that you have continued to disruptively edit User:Calton whilst logged out. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours. I will post the standard block template, which contains details of how to request an unblock, below. Gb T/ c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Gb T/ c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I did not make the edit I am accused of making. I am obviously not the editor who did so. I am in North America, from a school/library network. As I asked last week, this can easily be checked out as true The banned editor I am for no good reason accused of being is described as being in the Czech Republic, and the IPs involved are traced there by the "GEOLOCATE" function on the contributions page. The accusations were made in a discussion I started. But after I had logged out because the library was closing. The discussion was closed before I could respond. And there was no evidence presented at all. If you examine the edit histories there is no resemblance between what I do and what the user I am accused of being does. Even the administrator who began accusing me of being a sockpuppet (without saying whose) now says on his talk page "I have no idea if you are related to the old sockpuppet accounts mentioned." I also want to say that the disputed edit was not improper. It is the kind of deletion that the Arbitration Committee called for with regard to BLP violations on userpages. No one has seriously claimed that the material I deleted did not have BLP violations in it. I will post more from the Arbcom decisions but I have to research them a little. If this is not good enough then I ask to be unblocked so I can take this to Arbitration since I was just following Arbcom guidelines ! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline reason:
While checkuser confirms that aspect of your unblock request, the blocking admin makes a good argument that your behavior has been nonetheless disruptive. — Coren (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Given that checkuser confirms that aspect of your claim, I've asked the blocking editor to comment here on whether that was the sole basis for the block. — Coren (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
{{ unblock}} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Wikipedia discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Wikipedia policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Jimmy Wales link [8]
From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi
6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
6.6 The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
From request for clarification of the same case, arbitrators statements that directing such comments at specific people crosses the line:
My analysis is that the statement in context would definitely be read as Bedford's own opinion put into a crassly extreme form, but that no-one would seriously read it as a literal statement. It is borderline but I would incline to the view that we cannot insist on its removal. This is partly because, in applying the complained-of remarks generally without naming the users, it is difficult to read it as personally insulting. Users unfamiliar with the dispute, intrigued by the use of such a forceful description, are far more likely to hold it against Bedford especially if they investigate the circumstances. I think in his best interests he should rephrase his remarks, but I strongly suspect that it is his own reputation that will suffer if he choses not to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...I agree with Brad and Sam. While Bedford's comment is highly distasteful to many in the community, it is not directed at anyone specific and is in his own user space. If it were a directed comment, I support removing it. As it is, it's primary negative affect is to the person that wrote it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
That is just last month!
From the similar request for comment on Law Lord:
Outside view by Fred Bauder Discourtesy is an increasing problem on Wikipedia. Lack of courtesy has driven a number of editors away from Wikipedia. An assertion by an editor who has departed that the reason they left was lack of courtesy is acceptable. A personal attack would involve not only identifying the person, but an attack that is personal, not merely an assertion that Wikipedia policy was not followed. We should not create a situation where not only is the policy violation tolerated, but even mention of it is forbidden.
Users who endorse this summary:
Fred Talk 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) This is really not problematic at all, and removing and protecting the user page(!) to remove that sentence is just plain absurd. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC) PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Davewild (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC) MikeHobday (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) --NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cheers dude (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Agree with Conti. لennavecia 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The best defense again libel/slander is the truth. Are there rude admins? Yes. Are there abusive admins? Yes. Are there admins who should lose the bit? Hell yes. Is it possible that Law Lord is in fact tired of dealing with them? Yes. Case closed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Ray (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) --Smashvilletalk 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) SIS 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Locke Cole • t • c 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
You may be pleased to know that Jimmy Wales has made comments supportive of you in relation to your efforts to remove unacceptable comments from Calton's user page and has suggested that the admin who blocked you might want to reconsider his position as an admin (not directly related to your blocking but still related to this matter). Then again you may already know or you may not care. I thought I'd mention it anyway given the bizarre way you were treated over this. 87.254.80.49 ( talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that by starting this ANI with regards to Calton, that you have put yourself squarely in Guy's cross hairs. Be careful, they will now try to spin this so that Calton comes off as the victim here, not the aggressor. I suggest you bring this matter straight to Jimbo. 78.102.139.114 ( talk) 10:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I told you so, they are turning this into "Calton is the victim" and right on cue Guy jumped in. They are also claiming you are the banned Truthcrusader person, of course no one will run a checkuser to verify or disprove it. again, take this to Jimbo.
78.102.139.114 (
talk)
14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
See? With all the BS flying around about Calton claiming you are Truthcrusader, the initial reason WHY you filed the ANI is lost forever. Also lost is the two personal attacks he made a few days ago on two other editors.
78.102.139.114 (
talk)
00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. With regard to your edits to the Kate Jackson article, specifically with regard to your removal of the information regarding Jackson's two treatments for cancer, it seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider that the appropriate edit here would not be to remove the uncited material, but to A) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section.
If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search "Kate Jackson" "breast cancer" and add the reference yourself. As I read that you do your editing work during time at a library, it would seem a greater degree of source information would be available to you there than the average person, as libraries typically subscribe to paid news sites. Barring this, you should take note of the other information on the page relevant to your edit: the Category:breast cancer survivors page links to the Kate Jackson article, and this is evident from that category's tag in the Jackson article. But what is the value to you or another reader of removing this fact from her biography, and from the list of cancer survivors?
Kate Jackson was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and again around 1991. While the first bout was something she kept secret, the second made her decide to make her health publicly known, resulting in her being the subject of a cover story in People magazine. She also underwent open heart surgery in 1994 after discovering she had been born with an Atrial septal defect. She has been active in spreading awareness of both conditions. Please take an interest in the subjects of your edits; when they are clearly not vandalism, spend at least the same minute or two searching for a source as you would editing the material out. If you don't care enough to do so, the answer is to place a cite tag or to walk away from the article. A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to. Abrazame ( talk) 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I saw you previously prodded Curtis' article as NN and for having no reliable sources, so I just thought I'd let you know I AfD'd it for basically the same reasons the other day, if you wanted to join in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzareya Curtis Mbinebri talk ← 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the Robert Mihaly AfD page. I agree with your feedback! Carolinequarrier ( talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Hullaballoo, I read your "Strong Keep" for the Axelsson Living persons bio, and I'd have to disagree. Reading thru the Swedish and German papers, she has no relationship to the Danish royal house but her boyfriend (they aren't engaged) does, distantly. (I do a lot of royalty stuff and it's hard to keep the "pretty princess!" fandom from swamping Wiki.) Her books aren't notable and the stuff that's in those articles is basically fluff that's paid public relations. There are literally thousands of minor German princes populating the country so I can't see why the girlfriend of one of them gets a Wiki page. Most of the supporting documentation is like reading the National Enquirer only with worse errors; for instance, B Bladen has her as non-English speaking although she was born, raised, and educated in the US through high school. Anyway, she looks pretty with makeup and her boyfriend must really like her, but I'm not seeing that as notable. Best to you, PR ( talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus ( talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I undid to my last edition the article Krystle Lina because the references has been deleted, and after has been added the deletion quote, but if equal you think the article need more notabillity contact me again -- AchedDamiman ([[User talk:AchedDamiman|talk]]) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz- I writing in regard to your edits on articles Jessicka & Clint Catalyst, specifically with regard to your removal of information. It seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider finding the appropriate reference links rather then just removing entire subjects making the articles less factual. In the future please place a cite tag or leave the article "as is". A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to.
I am contacting you in good faith and hope that in the future you will follow wikipedia policy!
thanks, Xtian1313 ( talk) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE before criticizing editors who are attempting to enforce those policies. As another user commented on the article you say is about your wife earlier today, a Wikipedia article is "not an opportuinty to spam Wiki with everything related to her." [9] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I have stated several times that Jessicka is my wife - examples here: [10] here: [11] & here: [12]
Understand, I am not being uncivil. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's wikipedia page. Removing links wasn't even your edit. See here: [13] I am fine with the edits made by User:Piano non troppo, as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands. Please don't deflect. I am stating facts. I am asking you to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking you to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section.
If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search . If you are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of COI with these articles.
As far a User:Tallulah13's talk page goes please reread what I wrote. [14] and I quote, "If you ever need a third party opinion ( for articles I don't have a COI with) please feel free to hit me up."
I do not know User:Tallulah13. I was being nice. Is being nice to somebody against wikipedia policy? I have not made edits on either Jessicka or Clint's pages. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 has not made edits on Jessicka's page. As far as I know User:Tallulah13 does not know my wife or Clint in real life. She said that my wife emailed her - ? Perhaps on Clint's behalf to say thank you?
In closing, I'm not spamming. I am not making edits. The links in question were not added by me. Is there another problem here that I don't know about? I came to you in good faith, if there's some sort of issue - please enlighten me before I involve others. All items that you've removed have NOW been sourced. Rather then look for the source yourself trying to expand the articles in question, you just removed entire sections! How is that constructive?
I am asking you nicely to please follow wikipedia policy. I am still familiarizing myself with wikipedia but I can tell when somebody has a clear COI when editing certain articles. I look forward to resolving this matter quickly, Xtian1313 ( talk) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your comments made here: [15]
"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com."
My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com. If you have some issue with her legitimacy, might I nicely suggest that you leave editing her wikipedia page to user(s) who have no COI and have neutral third party opinions. This reason is why I myself do not edit her page.
"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently [110], although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)"
The episode was filmed in LA not Germany. Germany's Next Topmodel, Cycle 4 You know what people say about assuming. A little research on certain topics goes a long way.
"A Wikipedia article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka."
I have no idea what promoting business you are talking about. The end of your ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what you are alluding to. I am telling you it's simply not true. I am coming to you in good faith. If you have some issue with my wife, Clint Catalyst, or anybody whom you assume they are friendly with being legitimate and deserving wikipedia pages, might I suggest that the best course of action is for you to allow user(s) who can be 100% neutral, fair, and willing to do research to edit their articles.
Xtian1313 (
talk)
15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, do not post silly things as you did on my talk page. Vanthorn ( talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have stated who I am. This is the only name I sign in under. I have given an email address where I can be reached. I have not edited articles that I have a COI with. The fact you, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have a weird obsession in editing all things associated to my wife and myself. [16]
I believe that you are Gaming the system.
Xtian1313 ( talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am betting that he is some homeless guy since he says that he hangs out in libraries and that is where he gets his internet access. Thats the kind of thing that a homeless guy would do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.175.187 ( talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been watching this all unfold for a while now. I am a fan of a lot of the people listed on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit list. I agree he/she certainly has a COI with all of these articles/individuals. I'm really not sure why a moderator or administrator isn't doing something about this person as they truly are being destructive on a lot of well written wikipedia pages. Parenttrap ( talk) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggested by User:Jayron32 here [17] - This is my one and only account. Please feel free to check my IP address. Parenttrap ( talk) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hullaballoo! I believe this will be of interest to you: User_talk:AuburnPilot#Help. Essentially, User:Xtian1313 is attempting to out you as being me or my boyfriend. Obviously, for one, that's just not true, outing people is against wiki policy. User:Xtian1313 outed me and attempted to out User:Snuppy as someone, a while ago, and has been repeatedly informed that this is against policy. I believe that the person behind User:Xtian1313 has a long history of editing articles under various revolving IP's and usernames, including User:KurtneyLovelace and User:RickeyGoodling. There is a history of articles related to Scarling and the core member Jessicka being built up/promoted by these IP's/usernames while articles of "perceived enemies" have been continusously torn down with negative/unnecessary/unproductive edits, since day one. These IP's have also included the names of Scarling and Jessicka everywhere on wikipedia, essentially promoting/building up this person/band everywhere, all over wikipedia, even on the page for Silver Lake, California!
Not to junk up your page with personal experiences, but my boyfriend Kyle Justin was in their band, and his former bandmates (the 2 core members) do not like him, and neither does the person behind all these edits. ::clears throat:: I created a profile for him last year ( Kyle Justin) before we were together and before I was in his band, not really understanding the policies of wiki involving conflicts of interest. I've since been outed/outed myself. And, myself and a good friend of mine, who created the articles related to Skeleteen, no longer use the same account. I realize now I have been in violation of wiki policies before, and have made a concerted attempt to not violate them again. In any event, the articles for Kyle Justin, TC Smith, and Robin Moulder (all people this person doesn't like) have been torn down repeated/obsessively since they were put up. It's all in the history. Thank you for reverting the most recent edits to the Kyle Justin page done by this person, as it's obviously the same person doing unproductive/destructive/possibly hateful things. Even if the photos need to be taken down (I don't know), it's not right for that user to be gaming the system. Kyle even came on here on User:Chzz's talk page to ask if someone could delete the article about him, because he doesn't want to be lumped into a category with the fame-junkies/minor league "internet celebrities"/wannabes. (You can find that here: User_talk:Chzz/Archive_5#deleting_article_on_me.3F.) He got permission from Chzz to delete defamation of character/libel/legal threats and false accusations against him by User:Xtian1313 on Chzz's talk page, but was unsuccessful at having his article deleted, as Chzz says it conforms to the notability standards. In any event, I hope some of this will help you out... you can delete all this to clean up your page. Just trying to help you out with more history on this situation. There are a lot more links I could send you for more information, if you like. (I honestly don't know if any of this helps.)
Anyway, thanks for looking out. It's about time. User:Snuppy and I have talked about doing a user check on this person for a while (go here to see that: User_talk:Snuppy#Check_user). I checked all the IP's you listed against the ones I have, they all go back to the same location (the precise longitude and latitude) in Los Angeles, California. It's been a long time coming... I believe it's obvious that this all comes down to one person and a user check isn't even needed to see that. Honestly, I would love for a user check to be done on myself just to prove that I haven't done ANYTHING to the pages related to her ( Jessicka) or Scarling... I could care less about their articles, as I do not ever want to associate with people like that, anymore, and neither does my boyfriend. :) Matt – Godblessyrblackheart (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I am wondering how listing books that Mr. Catalyst has authored with ISBN numbers is considered WP:RS or WP:BLP. I am just curious as I personally see no problem with these edits. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 5, 2009 @ 17:07
Just out of curiosity, do you know what in the world everyone is claiming your COI is with the article? I've warned User:Tjcrowley to stop with the blatant reverting but I think we need a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to get some sanity on this. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
You removed one citing source representing actress Ann Jillian and declared it unreliable. For what particular reason?
UWEC School Classs at 173.26.80.178 ( talk) 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hullaballo,
I notice that you, too, have been trying to clean up the Lenora Claire article which -- when I stumbled on to it -- read rather more as a press release. In reviewing the edit history I see SPA LenoraClaire has been active in editing it as has a Los Feliz Los Angeles ip which I suspect to be controlled by Ms Claire. Most recently another ip vandalised the talk page to delete a COI note I added. Do you think it worth reporting these socks or protecting the page or something else? Bigdaddy1981 ( talk) 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I have posted a note at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Clint_Catalyst about the COI concerns with Clint Catalyst. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that the sock puppet investigation you started has come to a conclusion, "Conclusions I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser." [18]
I myself am not editing these articles, for obvious reasons. Please allow editors who do not have a conflict of interest with these subjects and can maintain a neutral point of view to edit these articles. fair? Whatever issues you have with me, please feel free to email me at scarlingmusic@aol.com so we may take them off wiki. Thank-you. Xtian1313 ( talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz Xtian1313 ( talk) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have prodded a number of these articles within a short timespan (minutes). It seems likely that you have made no attempt to follow WP:BEFORE. A number of the pages do make claims to notability, a porn star with a Magna cum laude university degree, a porn start with a black belt in tae-kwondo and bronze medal from Junior Olympics, a pornstar which has appeared in every major men's magazine, a porn star with a whoppin' film count (161), sprinkled with nominations within that film industry, some multiple; and a person (photographer) for whom I think the bio-porn is not even relevant.... It raises the probability that someone with an interest in the topic could establish notability. I'm therefore not at all sure that your nominations are uncontroversial and hence suitable for PROD. Reading some of the posts above also leads me to believe, that it is defensible for me to revert those PRODs, which I have done. Power.corrupts ( talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I've removed an edit of yours from AN3 [19]. The section is closed, and your edit was unhelpful. Please seek to avoid inflammatory language William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo. I took a look at the case you recently filed at WP:AN3. If you can establish that people connected with the subject are editing their article, you could file at WP:COIN. This could be a better venue than AN3. Due to the nature of your work, you may wind up sounding combative. But if COI is calmly assessed, reasonable remedies can be put in place, oftentimes by agreement. Admin action is possible in cases where nothing else seems to work. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I swear I did not do that. Someone is messing with my account. Even though I have changed my password. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ( talk · contribs)☺ 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've semi-protected your user page due to anon vandals. William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep it short with you as I did with Swancookie.
I have no interest or care as to what the ongoing dispute is concerning yourself and several other users.
My sole intent was to get all this into dispute resolution and stop cluttering up talk pages, message boards, and using helpme templates. That is all, I have no sides and I don't care to. Keegan ( talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I never put spam links in any article. I actually just clicked the link and it took me to scans of a Nylon magazine article. How is that vandalism? If you're having trouble accessing the article, please take that up with the site manager, not me. Thanks. -- MgCupcake ( talk)
Just so you know, you don't have to be an admin to mark a topic "resolved". -t'shael chat 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
We have proof that you are abusing your powers and privileges in regard to external link deletion. Please leave the name of your supervisor so way may send said proof forward. I hope you learn a lesson from this and cease to use your own personal bias to hurt the wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalCorp ( talk • contribs)
Hi, I declined your request for PP of Julie Benz, but you should certainly renominate it if the vandalism starts up again. I believe it is only one disruptive editor, which should be able to be handled through warnings/blocks. It would be great if you could issue warnings as well. I won't always be logged in, so again issue warnings and feel free to renominate it if the vandalism continues. Thanks for your help! Plastikspork ( talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks much better now. Plastikspork ( talk) 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
How do you justify deleting my entry but retaining the entry about her appearing on Playboy TV? Kuzosake ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your input on this topic: Template talk:Infobox adult female#Official website in infobox and ext. links section
Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for catching the Jodie Foster mis-edit re. Yale School of Drama cat. That editor also added the same cat to the
Meryl Streep article. I don't know if it's true in Streep's case, but I've asked the editor via User:Talk page to stop removing the Yale U. cat. Even if Streep or any megastar attended the Drama school, readers may still look for them in the Yale U. cat as well.
—
.`^) Paine Ellsworth
diss`cuss (^`.
15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Just a friendly note on Mayer Brown. I wasn't comfortable deleting this as a speedy, since there were non-infringing versions and, as you rightly pointed out, it was a complicated case. Instead, I took a chainsaw to it and rewrote everything outside the info box. Mind taking a look and letting me know if it works for you? Thanks! -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for catching the issue with that award. Cook has won an Emmy with NBC and I thought that was the one. I really do appreciate you catching it and fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for looking over the Dana Delany article. But I wanted to know further why you edited out from Dana's significant others people like Treat Williams and Henry Czerny. Yahoo Movies lists them both as significant others for Dana. And what source did you say was NNDB (and why do you think it's a bad source?) On the internet, I've found pictures of Dana with Treat Williams (standing close together). And my sense is the connection with Henry Czerny is real as well. How did you come to the conclusion that the sources which you removed were bad ones? Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
I. early life (birth, schooling) II. New York City -- breaking into the business
Soap operas Broadway (critical reviews) Off-Broadway (critical attention) Key friendships and connections (Christopher Reeve, for example)
III. Early Hollywood years (TV guest starring spots, China Beach) -- establishing herself as a major actress
TV guest starring spots (showcasing her talent) China Beach (should include: how did she get this role? should get its own paragraph I think, mentioning Emmys plus critical attention) Movies TV movies Voice work (The Batman/Superman, Lois Lane, fan reactions, critical acclaim -- Why Dana = major voice talent)
IV. Later Hollywood years -- pursuing acting
More TV work (sitcoms that didn't get off the ground, critical reviews, etc) Other projects (narrating, Vietnam nurses, audio books) Guest spots on talk shows Dana-as-a-celebrity (being a presenter in awards shows, talk show appearances, interactions with fans) Causes (scleroderma, other causes)
V. Filmography VI. Awards VII. Notable achievements VIII. References
So, Hullabaloo, do you like this organizational scheme? I'm wondering what you think? I'm interested in getting feedback from excellent wikipedia editors such as yourself. Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'd like to remind you to add your signature after any talk page posts or warnings so we know who you are ;-). Thanks. - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me | BNosey - 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
– Drilnoth ( T • C • L) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cassidy Cruise. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassidy Cruise. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I noted your comments in the edit summary for your removal of the entries from that section; to clarify, the discussion was not primarily about using Allmovie in the way that Erik implemented at Fight Club, but one over its suitability as an external link. The discussion petered out with no real conclusion—with no support, but also no consensus objection to such a use. I invite you to participate at Talk:Fight Club (film)#"See also" section, where your thoughts on Erik's intended use of the section would be appreciated. All the best, Steve T • C 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that Chicapedia is not a reliable source. I intend to delete all reference to it except where in one case where it reinforces another reference. Please let me finish editting before you begin. Thanks
Hi, could you please explain to me why you removed my Rebecca Scott reference? How is this unreliable? It seems pretty reliable to me. Thanks! Asc85 ( talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent detective work there. — Sean Whitton / 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very sorry, for deleting things from Sophie Abelson, David Sturzaker & Michelle Lukes.
Redped
xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redped ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Roxy Panther has been removed. It was removed by Chuthya with the following edit summary '(Undid revision 304803778 by KevinOKeeffe (talk) asserts notability)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Chuthya before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages)
Hmmm, that was added (making it notify the first user to tag) per suggestions at the BRfA. It's to avoid warning a vandalism reverter (say, a user tags the article, another user blanks (removing the PROD) ClueBot reverts (restoring the PROD), another user removes the PROD, ClueBot gets notified. Not that that's important, just my little defence ;). Anyway, I'll look into a way to get around this (possible using the date the PROD was added, or something similar). Thanks for letting me know :) - Kingpin 13 ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi excellent Hullaballoo. Wondering if you'd advise me about an article. Many users feel the Gerald Celente article is a lopsided, one-way advertising piece for Celente, a gloom-and-doom forecaster and business consultant, talking head. Most "references" in the existing article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
So I spent a day researching the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly (2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain), and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I expect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the wikipedia article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's always making gloom-and-doom predictions (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
So I rewrote much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. And I posted my re-edit. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". (I did have comments on the talk page from earlier, but they were ignored). I'm wondering what to do here. Do you have any advice? I've posted comments on the reverting editor's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? Tomwsulcer ( talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
you may be interested in this current conversation Ikip ( talk) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in one of the dispute resolution forums. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond.
If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
This edit: [21] is unacceptable. You are, in my view, personalising this debate too much. Please don't do that sort of thing again. It may be helpful to review WP:COOL, because as BWilkins has pointed out, you're not working amicably to resolve the dispute you started, you're engaged in a series of moves that (in my view) are more escalatory than they are conciliatory. Please try to edit more collegially and in the spirit of working together and seeking consensus instead of editing so confrontationally. Even if you think that in your view the other party or parties is/are being confrontational. ++ Lar: t/ c 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about causing the extra work there. Must have copied over the same template twice and didn't notice. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride scent 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
... you don't think Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano could compete for the same role??? Gotta admit, that one was pretty amusing... (which role, by the way?) Nice to meet you. Tvoz/ talk 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.
While I agree with the substance of what you say, please could you consider toning down some of the more extreme phrases?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick note...your User talkpage comes up with a size warning for being too big. Have you thought of archiving it in order to reduce it? Have a look at the source code from my my talkpage on setting it up, or feel free to ask! ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit here, I just wondered why you feel this source is unacceptable, as XBiz always indicate whenever their articles are a press release, such as here. Maybe your views could be incorporated into the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#External links. Thanks. Epbr123 ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Every reference source I added to the Hank Skinner article points to either an actual court document from the case, or an article in a legitimate newspaper. Where possible, I also added a link to the same court document or article at the Hank Skinner advocacy site. Both sides have referenced material to support their edits, often from the same document. The article is hardly "poorly referenced. Where claims are unsupported, citation needed tags have been added. It's not like the article has been in a constant state of flux. The people who made those claims should have an opportunity to provide whatever sourcing material they have. As for my edits, I stand by them 100%. grifterlake ( talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
To describe the Jenrette's sexual escapades as merely "events that transpired during their marriage" is ludicrously bland. Avoiding libel doesn't need to sound like a legal brief. In version you reverted was far more modest than the saucy stories she's written about herself. 02:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
You premised your revert on two editors having objected to the material. They have not. Because it therefore rests on an erroneous premise, you should rescind your reversion immediately.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
When you said that I hadn't left this user alone, I took that as a personal attack, because I have not done anything outside of Wikipedia policy. Frankly I did not target this user in any way, but merely did what I felt was necessary as an editor. When you looked through my edit history and publicized spelling mistakes that I made, I took it as a personal attack, because it really had no bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't expect people to be perfect and I expect that I too will make mistakes. What I don't expect is to have somebody attempt to embarrass me by pulling it out in a public forum. According to WP:PA, personal attacks are comments on contributors rather than content. Due to the fact that you commented on my occupation and edit history, I took this as an attack. I realize that this may not have been your intent, but it is how it came across. I was not calling your challenging my edits a personal attack. In fact you were correct that the article was not identical, which I did not notice when I typed that comment. I did notice it before the second time I created the redirect, and felt that it wasn't fundamentally different in terms of content determining notability. If you notice, the second conversion to a redirect happened three days after the article was recreated. So yes, I do feel that I afforded him time to improve the article before converting it back to a redirect. If you read the talk page, the editor didn't respond to anything that I had written, but rather just restated his point and undid my revision. My reason for tagging for speedy deletion was to get an administrator's opinion on the whole matter. I don't like edit wars, and I didn't want to be engaged in one. If the speedy was declined I would have left it be and tried to find sources. Which I actually did try to do before I converted to a redirect the first time and the second time. Sources such as [25] [26] & [27], which were all top listings on google, had some information, but either just connected him to HP Lovecraft or gave information that really didn't make him notable. For example, my great-great grandfather was considered a master plumber in his time. He was considered the top in his field in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings there. The info I have on him reads very similar to Whipple Van Buren Phillips. Does my ancestor merit an article any less because he's not related to anyone famous? My honest feeling is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion as the article stands. I listed it at AFD to form consensus. I stated my opinion, and that's exactly what it is, an opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with me, and in fact I don't expect you to. What I am asking is that you understand where I'm coming from on this, and realize this is not something I did out of the blue to cause problems for another editor, but rather something I felt should be done based on my own research and experience. HarlandQPitt ( talk) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hull,
Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Per_station_television_schedules would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Hullaballoo. The reason the word "denied" was not used to get the point across that she says these rumors are incorrect is because "deny/denied" falls into the Wikipedia: Words to avoid category in this case. I have to state that it does make it sound as though she is lying. Whether we believe whatever she denies in this case to be a lie or not is beside the point, of course. If you have any other suggestions for a word to replace "refuted" (instead of "denied"), I am definitely up to listening to what you have to say about the matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
why did you delete my stuff that I wrote under influences? it was properly sourced and relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumdrumdrummer ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Edit summary comments like "fake support for notability!" on Co-Ed Fever (film) do not support that assumption. Thanks. Jokestress ( talk) 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from leaving vandal warnings on an editor's page when there was no vandalism to begin with. So, this warning seems kind of redundent, doesn't it.
Having said that, I left a perfectly viable explanation in the edit summary when I originally removed the deletion notice. Did you even bother to look at the deletion header before reverting my edit and leaving me the unnecessary message? Please read the result of the fifth nomination. -- Ghostexorcist ( talk) 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the removal was more an expression of Ghostexorcist's frustration with the repeated nomination then vandalism. -- Nate t/ c 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
When you have time, can we please collaborate on how to make the Masiela Lusha page polished and presentable? As of now, Wiki is still citing a need for polishing and fixing -- more so with your re-editing.
I admire your eye on precision, and I feel I have a lot to offer as well, while supporting it with legitimate article links, etc.
I don't intend to "spam" or include bogus links, but I could use some help to make both your job and my job a little easier.
Thank you in advance,
Aaron W —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronweinhaus ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't have the patience to get into a revision war with you, but Mandingo's penis size, though poorly sourced, is widely known and central to his fame. Your repeated attempts to remove it are particularly obnoxious given your refusal to participate in the Discussion page. I specifically started a topic related to the subject on the talk page; your summaries in your edit notes aren't cutting it. Reyemile ( talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hullabaloo,
How are you? I just wanted to let you know that even if this rumour started up on a certain blog, the rumour of the new castmembers has popped up on TV Guide.com http://www.tvguide.com/News/SNL-New-Cast-1009401.aspx as well as some other mainstream sites. Now I know they reference the original blog, but I just wanted to make you aware of the new sites featuring the news. I don't know what to make of it though. Guess we'll have to wait for the premiere! Thanks 70.29.242.22 ( talk) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) samusek2
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you. NW ( Talk) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You removed relevant and sourced material, with the rationale that the information or sources (or both) are too gossipy. I point out that The CW interview, whether a video or not, is a reliable source. E! news is also a reliable source, whether gossipy or not. How is it better to remove information about James Lafferty having dated Sophia Bush simply because you find it "too gossipy"? Flyer22 ( talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
And just to be clear, I am not against your other edits and removal of material from this article, and I left those edits intact. It is just the removal of Lafferty and Bush having dated that I objected to, which is why I reinstated it. It is not simply speculation. It was difficult for Chad Michael Murray and Bush to be on set together not only initially because they were previously married...but also because she was now dating one of his co-stars; his speaking out about this is what is in the article. Yes, he was the one to confirm the romance between those two, but I doubt he was lying, and those two have not denied it. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't care to argue with Sainty on genealogy - the guy knows what he's talking about. It may not technically meet the standards of a reliable source, but I would bet money that the information about the Boncompagni on his website is accurate. (I'm familiar with him because I used to read and occasionally post on alt.talk.royalty, where he was a regular. The guy has idiosyncratic opinions on some subjects, but he knows his shit). At any rate, we see here, at Leo van de Pas' genealogy site the entry on Prince Nicolo Boncompagni-Ludovisi, presumably the gentleman in question. Van de Pas's site is obviously self-published, but is generally pretty reliable, and most importantly, he lists his sources. Van de Pas provides the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and The Royal House of Stuart as his sources - those are both reliable sources on royal genealogy which ought to be discoverable in many research libraries. We should try to check them out ourselves, if we can, but I would be very surprised if they turned out to say anything different from Van de Pas' or Sainty's sites. The man's existence, descent from the reigning houses of Piombino, and so forth, seem to be easily discoverable. The marriage to Jenrette should also be sourced, though. I can understand that people doing obnoxious self-promotion on their own Wikipedia article is very annoying, and wish you luck in combatting such silliness, but I think this particular battle is an unnecessary one. john k ( talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I have sent you an email. Amsaim ( talk) 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello, How do we stop people from changing his page? I know that it can be done. Angelo is getting very upset seeing the page change every other month, he wants to be the one with the updates on his life. So please stop making changes.
Many Thanks,
Susette Ashley Garrett/aka Mrs. Angelo Moore
( Trubarbie ( talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC))
Thank you for the backup help on articles such as Aubrey O'Day and Sophia Bush. I know that you did not decide to watch these articles just to help me out per say, but to rather keep them clean, but the additional help is appreciated. These vandals and other unhelpful or unsourced (or both types of) additions wear me down. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If you really, really have a problem with this Batman list, then I suppose that the same can be said about the one about James Bond: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_considered_for_the_James_Bond_character
TMC1982 ( talk) 11:48 p.m., 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the second email to you about Angelo Moore. Please stop removing the information on his page. I read the Biographies of living person page and the things on his page are relevant and verifiable. He asked for those things to be on his page, due to the fact that many of his songs have to do with marriage, his child, and what makes him him. His fans know him for those things. So that would make the things you continue to delete important to the article. Angelo checked his page because someone stated that the information had been removed once again by you. My next step is to report this to the Biographies of living persons notice board if you do not stop. Yes, I am his ex-spouse that is working with him and his management company to make sure inforamtion about him is correct. I check with Angelo before anything goes up or comes down from his page. If need be I will have Mr. Moore contact wikipedia himself in the event this email is not enough for you to stop making edits to his page.
Many Thanks,
Susette Ashley Garrett- Moore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trubarbie ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! Couldn't help but notice the edit you made to this artical. Hate to seem rude, but I had just re-edited that particular bit back in after an unregistered user deleted it without comment! I'm not as experienced with wiki as yourself. I'm curious why the edit was counted as cleanup? Many thanks :) OutrageousBenedict ( talk) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip ( talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
FYI, WeKinglyPigs.com has been used for a few years now for info on Playboy Playmates. Most of the information comes directly from the issues of the magazine themselves. The woman who runs the site works in the library at the University of Chicago. See WP:P* under the useful links section. Dismas| (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
You removed it again with no discussion in the talk page. But you did have a one line edit summary. Removing it entirely is wrong. I will work on it to address your concerns. Specifically, I will remove most of the description like a man's cock in her vagina doggie style, and the like. One scene won an award so some detail is necessary but will be done tastefully. G314X ( talk) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello HB. Just wanted to ask if you used to use this same name 'Hullaballoo' to post on the discussion forums in tennis.com a while back. I was a poster there too but have not posted in a long long while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.229.211 ( talk) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
First off HB, thanks for monitoring the very controversial Wikipedia entry for Dimitri The Lover. My name is Shawn and I am his Manager. Please note that when I beefed up Dimitri's entry with additional information, I was fair and DID NOT remove anything that was derogatory, even though much of it is inflammatory and borderline defamatory. I only removed gross innacuracies and reworded misleading sentences. I have provided references for all additions. I may do a bit more rewording for grammar and sentence structure (I'm a real stickler for that) and may also add in more content. My IP Address is static and if you see anything from it please know that it is me. Also, I sometimes use internet cafes, so if any other edits that seem reasonable are made from other IP's and I have noted them to be made by myself, then please provide lattitude. You can see that I have undone some vandalism in the past. I would appreciate you helping us keep a keen eye on this most controversial BLP to ensure no further vandalism. We are in the post-production phase of a Hollywood documentary about Dimitri The Lover, word is slowly leaking out about the "voicemails" being, let's just say, not what they seem, and expect a lot of traffic to this Wikipedia entry. If you need to get in touch with me personally, please go to www.dimitrithelover.com and use our contact, noting that it is for me. I prefer not giving out my direct email here. Thanks once again for being vigilant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 ( talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I am quite new to editing on wikipedia but I know and understand how to cite references. I would like to understand why you keep removing the content thats been put up in the past. Especially when a lot of it has to do with movies
that he has been a part of that are plainly referenced on imdb.com. If you consider that site not to be reputable then please let me know of a better site than that one because I can't think of any other. Other major hollywood personalities
have used imdb.com for sourcing. It is wasting my time and yours to keep taking it down and putting it up again.
Julietamyor
Julietamyor ( talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The CMT and Rolling Stone listings are only directories. I haven't found anything on CMT or Lyric Street that even announced the release of this album; albums by notable acts aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to try and do what Wiki says, talk this through and assume good faith on everyone’s part. This picture is NOT Deanna Brooks. I've known of Deanna Brooks for years, I've exchanged emails with her, I'm a friend on hers on Myspace and Facebook and I can tell you with absolute certainty...the picture is NOT her. I contacted the person who posted it and told him the exact same thing I'm telling you. You can check out her official website, her Myspace page, her Facebook page, her Twitter page, her IMDB entry or just Google her. The women in this picture is very tanned, Deanna Brooks is fair skinned, always has been, the women pictured has breast implants, Deanna Brooks does not. What is the purpose of constantly adding a photo which is NOT her, why continue to make her entry so glaringly inaccurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 ( talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
User talk:71.235.38.171 - Schrandit ( talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I'm at 3RR! Looks like you're going to have to find yourself a partner soon...maybe User:Tide rolls is around. Good luck, Drmies ( talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Fixed the article, added a source to confirm my edits. Cheers!
Some of your edits are being discussed here: [28] I thought I should alert you just in case you didn't see them on your own so that you would have an opportunity to respond as well. Hope all is well! ConcernedVancouverite ( talk) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the IMDb reference in this article - Three-Five-Zero-Zero - acceptable IYHO? Thanks 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
How about here: Jerry_Springer:_The_Opera? 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
And here: Three Mile Island (ref 15)? 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Here? Escape to Witch Mountain (1975 film) 75.182.113.84 ( talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I was following up on the message I left a few days ago and still did not see a detailed response to it. I would really like to fix the page so that it is acceptable by Wikipedia standards and would really appreciate some detailed feedback. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for the improved reference on Clint Catalyst! As a result, I spent some more time working on the paragraph (for example, I noticed Darren Stein's name was misspelled). I see you're pretty much a Wiki black-belt, so I hope you think I've done a good job. Thanks again for looking out for me! Feather Jonah ( talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you removed alot of content from Ruth Rosen, perhaps an AfD is in order? abc518 ( talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don not understand why we can not use her real name. Several porn actresses have their real names in the articles, like Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress). It was even sourced. Glumpbaar ( talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
How does who she previously dated hold no encyclopedic significance? I've seen plenty of GAs. It's not gossip either as it's clearly sourced. I'd also like to remind you of the 3RR rule. -- Jimbo [online] 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'd appreciate you leaving the information about Nina Carter's cameo in American Werewolf in London in her article. The information is accurate, it's not contentious, it's not BLP and you keep removing it without leaving notes. If you refuse to desist, I would at least like your guidance on how we can arrive at a mutually acceptable scenario, rather than the unilateral removal of accurate information? Much obliged! 17.22 28 Sep 09 (BST)
Your point: 'since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer'. I have got a single clue what you're alluding to here. However, there's no explanantion as to how why details about a film cameo bear on Ms Carter's life. It is relevant to her career though, and accurate, and her cameo is now mentioned solely as being in the film, without the copy that seems to so aggrieve your sensibilities. Your style of editing seems to others to be overly fussy but I'm hoping that the current article meets with your exacting standards.
Please leave it alone now. Thanks. 20:24 BST 28/9/09
I didn't add the information. 22.24 BST 28/9/09.
I call them 'reverting vandalism'. 09.11 BST 29/9.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.175 ( talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I imagine it will get you blocked also, am I right? 80.229.187.175 22.40 BST 29/9/09
Edit warring will get you blocked, yes. Save the inarticulate and thinly veiled threats for someone who cares for your opinion. Thanks for putting the citation up though! 80.229.187.175 13.38 BST 30/9/09
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tamara Lee has been removed. It was removed by Garion96 with the following edit summary '(rm prod, not sure about this one)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Garion96 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot ( talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) ( Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I opened a discussion here -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi HW - I think the issue on Debra Winger goes beyond sourcing - see my comment on Talk:Debra Winger and see if you agree or disagree and perhaps we can get a dialog going rather than what's been happening. Thanks! Tvoz/ talk 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
So a story in the two major newspapers and from the national broadcaster in a country where public figures will sue you ( and done so in the past ) for getting the slightest thing wrong when reporting on them is not RS .Good Grief . Garda40 ( talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a direct recreation (I think word-for-word, but as I'm not an admin I can't see the text of the deleted version) of an article The Ogdens which was deleted.
The article was created, discussed at length for a week, and then deleted on the 18th Sept. On the 24th, it was recreated and speedily deleted:
I am curious as to why you have declined a speedy deletion, as this is an article which was decided should not be in Wikipedia, and from what I can see there is no difference between the current article and the deleted version.
I thought I would ask you before I put this up for deletion again, in case you were not aware of the recent history of this article (did you read the AfD discussion before removing the Speedy Delete notice, for example?)
I will give you a little while to respond, but by tonight if I have not heard from you, I will proceed to put this up for deletion again.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see four reverts, either by you or Krakatoa. The last version of the article that you saved makes no mention of the Polanski issue at all. Do you think it deserves no coverage in the article? Due to some recent improvements, the current version seems more neutral. So all in all, there no longer is a huge problem. I'm not seeing either edit warring or BLP at the moment, except perhaps there are too many references for people being annoyed at Applebaum over the Polanski thing, and this could be slightly over the top. If you still have reservations, maybe they can be explored on the article talk, and the 3RR report could be closed. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing "uncivil" or "intellectually dishonest" about warning someone about deleting content without a valid rationale, as I explained politely in that post, which had nothing to do with mere "disagreement" with your edit. Which part of my post do you disagree with? That you're not supposed to delete content because it is badly formatted or written? That's true. That three people opined that that material should remain, including one who offered Third Opinion as part of a request I made to address your concerns? That is also true. If you wanted to refute this, and continue to contest that material's inclusion, then you what you should do is start a consensus discussion on the Talk Page, and not engage in edit warring by removing it again after others decided it should remain. What is actually uncivil and intellectually dishonest is removing my warning to you and falsely labeling it vandalism with the Edit Summuary "rvv". I suggest you not make false accusations of vandalism, since at this point, you should know that a warning against content removal, even if you feel it is unwarranted, does not constitute vandalism. Nightscream ( talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your reversion edit of my edit of Stuart Broad, as you clearly had not read the reference at the end of the sentence, which confirms both his existing and former girl friends. Before suggesting anything is "gossip" check the references first. Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Provide the source that you believe the user has copied from. You are crossing 3RR. If there are so many sources then provide at least one. warrior 4321 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Now restored and written in order not to violate wiki policies on copyright. Can I suggest that in future if you do not agree with a particular piece of information in an article that you try to challenge that properly rather than get rid of the whole article. We can all go around deleting everything we don't like, but it's not particularly productive. Contaldo80 ( talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Other references. I cannot reference directly into the game (world of warcraft). I'll include other references. Do you have any ideas on this? Michaelbarreto ( talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to point out that 18c included the phrase "... but you disagree with them even after they present their rationale ...". I took that to imply that I still wanted to have a block installed, and was questioning whether I would do so unilaterally, which I would not. Certainly if I came to the conclusion that discussion on ANI would be pointless, I'd drop it before posting there.— Kww( talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I should have chosen a better source. It turns out that Chickpedia is a user editable source, not reliable. The idea that she changed her name is not that contentious. She has mentioned so in an interview and the last name of her mother is listed on multiple news releases. I added the birthname again using IMDb as a source. Stillwaterising ( talk) 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 | |
---|---|
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing |
She's back. Now that the articles have been semi-protected, she's editing them under her own account, so at least we can show that all the edits are from the same person. Care to lend a hand with the reverts, and/or to make her see reason? -- Zsero ( talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Just a follow-up on your edit summary when you removed the first G12 speedy tag on the above: While the source was published in 1910, it's the date of the death of the author that is relevant, and as far as I could ascertain, George Kemp Ward passed away in 1937, leaving his works under copyright for a few more years. I have therefore deleted the article accordingly. Cheers, MLauba ( talk) 10:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI. You did not address the "notability" issue in your post. Perhaps, the lack of notability is the strongest reason for deletion. (Even stronger than the absence of a single reliable source?) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Budania#Budania —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 ( talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please add you reasons for why you did this on the talk page Talk:Sal the Stockbroker I requested a review of it, you should add why you think it should be redirected. 98.117.40.154 ( talk) 17:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
It can be seen here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Sal the Stockbroker 98.117.40.154 ( talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
What am I not understanding correctly?
I placed a list of references to print publications in which Dontella Diamani appeared. These were removed, citing "unrefereced laundry list, primary sources at best, not generally included."
Dontatella Diamani is an 80s Italian sex symbol and has appeared in numerous centerfolds. To support that claim I thought the idea was to provide sources, including primary sources, and I supplied a few, down to specific page numbers. Why is it important to censor the fact that she has appeared in pictorals? WHy is it important to remove a pictoral section reference? That would only detract from her fame as a 70s-80s Italian sex symbol, would it not? Mouseydung ( talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You just deleted an entry I made on the George Michael article on the basis that you believed it was "non-constructive". That is a matter of personal point of view as many parts of the article could be considered to be non-constructive to the over all article. Please explain further on the George Michael discussion page before making arbitrarily deletions. Thank you. Artemisboy ( talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there..i noticed you reverted my addition to the article...as it being non-reliable sources...if so..what sources would be reliable and allowed..ancestry.com and the US census websites...??..the website that is sued seems to be the only one with the paternal side referenced..and in no doubt have more added to his paternal Martin and morales maternal sid when the information is available..the reference that is used for his Corsican great-4 grandfather is still used there which wasnt deleted..although it seems to have enough detail on the negorni side rearched..anyway..give me your views..and ill try to wearch for another website that gives the same info which isnt user edited..although this 'Negroni family tree' is only edited by ONE person..not many...in the website it says he sues the us census and ancestry.com to research the family. ..maybe better to discuss this on the talk page to get further opinions on this..thankyou. Puertorico1 ( talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
ohh.thanks, the only family members mentioned in the news and books are his parents and his grandmother who he talks about as being an influence..further than that, i cant find. .maybe that small amount can be added then, since there are many people like bill gates, John Mccain etc, ancestry which is documented also in their article by another website, although not in a tree like table. anyway..does that mean if he was dead that this would be ok to use this as a source.? Puertorico1 ( talk) 23:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This report may interest you. It seems to be related to Sal the Stockbroker. On an unrelated note, you should consider archiving your talk page as it's takes several seconds to load. Regards. — ξ xplicit 06:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Which BLP guidelines does that material fail? Nightscream ( talk) 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. One of the articles you tagged for proposed deletion, Leanni Lei, was contested after deletion. I undeleted the article and nominated it for deletion quoting your prod rationale. Just thought I would let you know. NW ( Talk) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has been reported to the Help discussion page regarding several items. I request to have a discussion with you regarding your questionable edits, changes and undos to the Amy Grant page, including one that undid much of my work. I also call into question your admittance regarding following Wikipedia policy (above), hounding from other editors for your past actions and unpredictable and erratic behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds)
This is another complaint against Wolfowitz. This volunteer has repeatedly made destructive and erratic changes to a popular wiki page though he/she apparently has no other purpose or reason than to exert his own influence and will on content. Wolfowitz's misguided efforts are hurting wikipedia and the valuable contributions of editors who work hard to make wikipedia a positive environment where collective efforts create good content. Dougmac7 ( talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds)
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt ( talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo!-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know somebody pasted the following (within the quotes) on my talk page -- "What do you mean by this? YOu wrote that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz deserves an award for being a "great watchdog" on wikipedia. Yet, several people have written major complaints about his destructive changes to pages that he has no connection to? Please explain why you are the only one who thinks he is doing good work. He himself wrote in his bio page that many people hounded him about his erratic changes to pages. Why is he apparently targeting my work? I have worked on two pages in the past 2 weeks- and he continually undoes my work without giving any explanation and without discussing though I specifically ask people to discuss before changing the content."
And then they didn't sign it. Generally I remember that your contributions to Dana Delany and Gerald Celente were positive and constructive, and I appreciate your advice and help with both of those articles. I also appreciate that you weeded out poorly sourced stuff, and dubious references, and alerted me about how some sources were bogus (and I agree with you, and I don't use them any more). So, just letting you know I appreciate your work! -- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing how he meets notability. I've found the same sources as you now, but all I'm seeing is a two-sentence mention in a book on Jeopardy! and incidental coverage following his Jeopardy! win. Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I did a Courtesy Blank on Thunder Collins.
I did not intentionally mean to "attack" him and apologize that it came off that way.
I searched for a page for him on Wikipedia and found none, so decided to start one. The only recent info that I had was the current info about his situation.
I assumed that others would come along and add to his biography, but instead it was viewed as an attack on the person, which it wasn't.
It seems that I have come under attack by a few users on my posts, but I have made posts without logging in previously that were not viewed as spam.
It's weird that once I joined and started posting as a logged in user, I became a target.
I subscribe to a Celeb/News Blog and when info comes through the Feed, I check Wikipedia to see if it has already been posted and provide a Source.
Blogs as sources are allowed from what I have read in the policies. It would be unfair for a Source to have to be a big name news site.
If my source was a particular blog, then that is what I cite.
I've also noticed that many times Users will delete my source, but keep the news from that source reported. This is not how I understood Wikipedia to work. Anything that I post deserves to have a source added to it. So, if a blog is my source, why should I not give them credit for it.
According to the Guidelines that I have read, we are first to assume that the Editor is editing in Good Faith. I have been, but many have simply attacked me as a spammer without considering that I provided valid info on a topic.
Please talk with me before the threats of Blocking me. I am not a spammer, just an eager User. Now, that I have joined and started posting under my User name, I have seen the True Colors of Wikipedia. My anonymous posts are still untouched somehow, but they also link to various blogs.
Please advise if I should begin posting anonymously again, since I did not have these sorts of issues before. My content and sources were considered valid then and should be considered valid now.
Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 ( talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess my main concern here is that many of the posts themselves were not deleted, so it appears that the CONTENT was acceptable. No problem though, it appears that Wikipedia doesn't consider "small" sources as valid sources which is ashame. Many times, blogs, etc., have new info before it even hits news sources. No prob, I guess I'll keep posting, but will only give "news" sites despite the fact that it may not have come from them. Whatever. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Niac7 (
talk •
contribs)
17:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I also see that you put the Thunder Collins back up. I Created that article and you said it was an attack. So now, I went in to do a Courtesy Blank and it is back up. Once again, you have kept the content, but you have a problem with my sources. This is very hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the articles themselves looked different to the ones on Wikipedia on the saints. On AllExperts.com I'm sure I've seen before articles where they have one person just writing something out, is this right? - Yorkshirian ( talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Priscila Herig -- Zsero ( talk) 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed the revision you made for Ann-Margret 15 minutes ago. If you're a confirmed user, can you get a look at the color photograph that someone deleted in 2008? I recall distinctly seeing it in the article before that time. It's such a great picture of her that it should go back in. What copyright issues, if any, were/are at stake? Thanking you in advance for your attention. Photodouble ( talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why you endorsed it. I have provided enough reasons and still you endorsed it. Rovea ( talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
So, basically, are you maintaining that the actress "Louise Germaine" is not the former glamour model born as Tina Reid, who worked under that name and a number of other pseudonyms? Nick Cooper ( talk) 17:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd nomination). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Steve Dufour ( talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) Can you please read Talk:Iman Crosson#Including descriptions of Crosson's videos and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of an objective description of a subject's own prior video as supposedly being spam? (A major part of the subject's notability is the very activity of producing videos.) . . . . . (2) Similar request: please read Talk:Iman Crosson#Including links to Crosson's official websites and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of links to some of subject's own websites as supposedly being spam. Thank you. RCraig09 ( talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Did you take a look at the previously deleted version? -- Mattinbgn\ talk 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Enjoy! Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd again like to thank the many editors and admins who've been dealing with the current vandalism sprees on my user and talk pages and the user/talk pages of other editors, especially those who've themselves become targets of the vandal as a consequence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
For taking on many contentious BLP articles and maintaining your ground when enforcement gets messy, I hereby award you this BLP Barnstar. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 17:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC) |
Yeah, I was uncertain on this one, so I undeleted it because I couldn't really tell from my short search if she was a playmate or not. If not, put a speedy tag on it and I'll delete. Dreadstar ☥ 18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you want me to semiprotect it longterm (or indefinitely) ? J.delanoy gabs adds 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
vn-∞ | This user page has been vandalized many, many times. |
Cheers! Outback the koala ( talk) 08:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi HW, I think you have a typo in your recent comment at the gay porn performer AfD. You say that 62 items are sourced to the Adam 2004 directory, then you say 29 items are sourced to the same directory. Should one of those be a different year? (BTW, you might think about archiving some old discussions from this page - it's rather large. :) )
I saw your question, but I have to be off the internet for a few hours and will respond once I get back online. Just wanted to alert you on this as I responded elsewhere on the RfA. cheers. - Spaceman Spiff
I wanna give you some due credit - good job cleaning up that page. MattDredd ( talk) 05:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you didn't miss anything. The link I have to the article isn't one that is available to the passerby as it is to a subscription site. There isn't a requirement that sourcing be available online or a link provided for a reference for it to be valid. I added an abbreviated link to the article that brings up the same page instead of the detailed one. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi established wikipedia editor. I have a question. For example, Glenn Gilberti - his name is spelt wrong here. How do I edit the main heading so that it'll be "Glenn Gilbertti" (with two ts). I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Thanks in advance. Marty2Hotty ( talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hullaballoo... I know Glenn, and he has done interviews and written columns on WrestleZone.com - his last name is spelt Gilbertti. He also has a facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730862806 - that is his real spelling. His name has been spelt incorrectly in news sources because he used to go by his alias "Disco Inferno". Can you guide me through the process of moving the article? Marty2Hotty ( talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Update - I have moved the article to "Glenn Gilbertti" myself after going through the help pages on wikipedia regarding how to move articles. I know this is the correct spelling and it has been confirmed on columns on wrestlezone.com - http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/article/random-thoughts-belts-are-props-part-one-58899 is an example. Thanks again for your help. Marty2Hotty ( talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors whose consensus inspired that debate. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Hullaballoo, The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a problem of non-judicial and police cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. is a matter concerningth are human rights and democracy in Europe espacially France and Hungary Best regards
1 -Many people in Paris are reading this discussion page and have pointed out that Hell in a Bucket looked alone to decide. Moreover he has also noticed on another page, I was suspected of creating pages for films that do not exist ????? What this new charge yet?
2 - is it normal, that Hell in a Bucket notifie that "that time is not now" at 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) than the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article ? 3
3 - What do other people think, now that they know that it is not a commemoration page, but the page on The Ophélie Bretnacher case wich is very important in France and Hungary , butnot for you, we have seen ? The problem is really, are you open for other civilisations here in U.S.A ? Or your Wiki in english is it just for american knowledge ?
Raymondnivet (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hullabaloo, I seem to remember your being involved in a WP:NFCC discussion about having book series cover images in articles about the series of books, was there ever a resolution to that question? It was regarding these IFD's, and now the same covers are being put up again, per this reasoning. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please take a look at my reply to your !vote on this AfD? I am concerned by your rationale and another thought also struck me while I replied to you. I think you'd probobly be able to answer my question pretty well. Thanks and happy editting.--v/r - T P 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello HW. I've just blocked an IP who recently edited this article, per User talk:166.205.130.250#December 2009. I do not know if this is a sock, but it is quite unlikely to be a sock of Cubert. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
A proposal has been created for WikiProject Saturday Night Live. Please leave comments, and consider joining as a potential project member. Mainly.generic ( talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Learn Spanish you will get the joke, just because you do not speak the language does not mean it is a sujective interpretation. Also there is not a copyright violation. RichardBond ( talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with adding Jesus, John the Baptist or Martin Luther as political dissidents, because they were at best religious dissidents, not political dissidents. Anybody with half a brain today knows that religion and politics are always meant to be separate nowadays, and that adding such examples is the absolute height of impertinence. Plus, there is also room for disagreement about whether Jesus was a dissident, since he clearly thought that the real dissidents were the pharisaic Jews, having ordrered them to render unto Caesar. ADM ( talk) 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that 3/4 of your edits have to do with some type of reverting. Is this a second-hand account of another user that is meant only for reverting ? If it is, I think the account in question should probably be blocked. ADM ( talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
You cite as your reason for censoring my post on Mark Lloyd's page that it is "subjective commentary, intended as derogatory." All I did was quote the guy, how is that subjective? And it's what he said, so if there was any intention to be derogatory it was his his, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countervaling ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have two issues:
1. How is a cited reference to a major newspaper considered vandalism?
2. Why would the examiner (sfgate) be blacklisted? I don't understand this....
KermitClown ( talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe that is the issue at hand here. Why is a newspaper blacklisted from this particular article? I cna't find anywhere that it was. KermitClown ( talk) 19:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I might as well apply to become an administrator/moderator, as you sir, have zero credibilty in my opinion. Seems you simply blanket categorize things as vandalism if someone does not share your POV. This is true of your characterizations of the Daly article. Seems like you go around and revert edits, like a bull in a china shop and never have any original edits to contribute. KermitClown ( talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with your assessment that notability is asserted, I later found that the entire section that I had marked off-topic was a copyvio and I promptly removed it. What's left is a sub-stub that does not assert anything, and I am unable to find references about Ms. El Nakkady (though the magazine itself gets a lot of ghits), in fact I am not even able to locate any primary sources. Do you think this should go to AfD? -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Despite your revert, please note [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43]. Not only are you somehow not "a neutral editor doing the restore", the title just keeps appearing in edit summaries, as an anchor, etc. This is what I mean, i.e. anyone who critiques him is somehow not neutral and anyone who warns him will have his/her warnings ignored. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for removing the AFD tag from Claudia Costa I checked both the original AFD and the deletion review but did not notice the 2nd AFD. Thanks for adding the tag back in. RP459 ( talk) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Would you happen to know why did I get a bot message saying that the Nadine Janssen article that apparently I created is scheduled for deletion? I mean I have never started that article. Why would I be getting the message then? Norum 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
How could it be deleted if the MAJORITY said to keep the article? 6 were to keep it, 5 to delete it. So technically that should have been kept. So much for the fairness on Wikipedia. Pathetic. Norum 14:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
the snl archives is a reliable site. It is accurate when detailing a show and a season.
http://snl.jt.org/season.php?i=1975
For example that link right there provides all the episodes, all the cast and the number of times live from... was said. It provides proof with pictures from the episode. The source is credible, by using the archives information we can calculate the number of times live from... was said and give it off to help wikipedias page. It very important, it shows how the cast member has importance in the show. Just like how the best of section the update section, it shows the importance of the cast member in their era. It would greatly help fans just as how the other sections on the page are. I dont understand why the archvies arent a good enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water78 ( talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
You removed the photo attached to the article "Loek van Mil". I shot this photo myself, so there's no copyright infringement. The picture only needs to be reduced to a proper size, I did not know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutfieldAssist ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
As a courtesy often overlooked by nominators, which is the most neutral way to post a note about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hudecki (2nd nomination) on the talk pages of the article's editors and particpants of the previous AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a double created article discussed at the BLPN and I am moving the contents and creating a redirect. Off2riorob ( talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Before these deletions, did you consider taking the time to have a look for better sources? I wasn't aware that The Sun was considered an inherently unreliable source either: can you point me to that discussion? While the sourcing could be better, I generally opt for Web-accessible references for new articles because they're easier to verify than offline publications (especially newspapers and magazines). I don't think there's reason to believe that the content in question is actually false, and it forms the basis of the article's notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
One more time: the article content referenced to the Sun article didn't match up with what the Sun article actually said, and what little that was verifiable wasn't encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
does "not match up" with the material added, which said:MODEL Suzanne claims to have the longest legs in Scotland - at a whopping 44 INCHES. ... She even insured them once for a staggering £1million.
Even given the discrepancy of the actual measurement, the actual content of both sections syncs up pretty neatly. Before I take this to a third opinion, care to reconsider the deletion? I'm happy for it to be tagged for better sources, but this was really a baby-with-the-bathwater moment IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Carlsson ... is on record as having the longest legs of any Scottish person, with an inside leg measurement of 36.5 in (93 cm) and an outside measurement of 46.5 in (118 cm). Her legs are insured for 1 million pounds sterling.
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)#Requested move. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo: I first added "In the Sun" without reference, which was removed by Andrewlp1991 stating appropriately "...If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes..." I then added back including appropriate references, but you removed it again citing andrewlp. What's that about? { Sec906 ( talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
OK, thanks, I shall try to be more careful. Then as for Munchausen By Proxy being a fictional band, I think an appropriate source might be
http://stereogum.com/archives/zooey_deschanel_does_synth_pop_for_the_new_jim_car_040631.html Would you agree? In part, my issue is that the current Wikipedia entry seems to present this as an actual band rather than make it clear this band is fictional. {
Sec906 (
talk)
21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
Reference "...and first single 'In the Sun'..." http://www.mergerecords.com/blog/2009/12/she-him-reveal-volume-two-details/ is the news blog for Merge Records. Although a blog, it is not user editable and is from their own record label's site. Does that not qualify as reliable? Sorry for the hassle, and thanks for your help on this. { Sec906 ( talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
Thanks! { Sec906 ( talk) 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}
I normally find you to be pretty balanced on AfD's, but in the case of the Cash Prince, I feel you're on a slippery slope. GNG is being used to shoehorn in non-notable people. For example, if my local paper (which passes WP:RS does a profile on the local karate instructor that opened a new school, he passes GNG as you are applying it. It is significant coverage (he is the subject) and the source is reliable and third party. Is that really what you believe the intent of GNG is? Is that where you want Wikipedia to go? My other question is about the criterias for different classes. Have you seen many examples, of a politician that doesn't pass GNG but does pass WP:POLITICIAN? Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
It's a very professional & important Blog for LGBT-in-the-media issues, and that was a article that covered events on the show, not speculation. For now I'll replace the source with one from the Howard Stern show website itself that the article linked to, but how do I get AfterElton counted as "reliable" so I can use it for future referencing?---- occono ( talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Miss Pooja. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Pooja (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you want to be snarky with your edit summaries, I won't worry about tip-toeing around. You're being pedantic about the Playboy appearence. She was completely nude, everyone knows it and it was one of their best selling issues. You keep citing BLP.....exactly which part of BLP is the problem? The issue isn't libelous or contentious. She isn't ashamed of it and readily admits it. There is plenty of proof, but the images are copyrighted. What exactly do you think the phrase "posed for Playboy" is supposed to mean? In family friendly RS's, like newspapers, they tend to avoid being overly descriptive of things like what nude photos showed. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there some reason you reverted without comment? Have you read the Talk:Michael_Richards#Consensus_section established on the article's talk page? HesAKramer ( talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That should be good enough for now. Y'all don't come back now, y'hear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Wolf, I just reviewed you recent edits to the Marketa Belonoha article. You removed 70% of the text in the article plus a long and carefully compiled list of her work. Most of the text was sourced. You seem to be selective in your deletions as you removed all mention of nudity and left other text even though what you deleted and what you removed were from the same source. This is not proper or neutral editing. Judging from the threads above, it would seem that this kind of selective editing may be a pattern with you. I hope you are able to alter this pattern soon. -- — Kbob • Talk • 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone's been adding a "Criticisms" (sic) section, which doesn't follow the BLP guidelines. Could your bot watch the page and revert these edits? ---- IsaacAA ( talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure this was just an oversight but in the same you removed the few sources that were listed as references while adding a tag asserting that the article had no references. You also dated that tag September 2007 rather than any current date. -- Banjeboi 08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm really bored of your ill edits. You even delete parts that have proper references on the relevant articles. Now, this is what genuine vandalism is. Understand? Behemoth ( talk) 07:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Talvin DeMachio. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talvin DeMachio. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime. Ash ( talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I will make citations corrections change tone to be less promotional. I know Grace personally and she used to go by Amy Gilbertson. She was in Miss America and runner up to Miss Iowa. I will site her accomplishments and also correct any inadvertent deceptions on my part. I am NOT a promoter, my name is Jeffrey Fry and am a personal friend of Ms. Sharington and thought her life noteworthy. Of course, I bow to your guidelines as you see fit to implement and thank you for your understanding and consideration. You can find me on LinkedIn and Facebook. I live in Austin, TX (jxf@austin.rr.com) is my email address and I invest and help start ups. Jeteye ( talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Removed info about 3rd person that is not verifiable, incorrect name. Added link to pageant winner.
Jeteye (
talk)
21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jocelyn Wildenstein. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi HW: I think you have a typo (loser instead of closer) in the DrV which could, in theory, be taken poorly. Hobit ( talk) 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Would you object to your AN/I report being moved to AN, which is better suited to that kind of discussion? Because there's no specific "incident" to deal with, stuff like that sometimes gets overlooked on AN/I. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The AN report has now scrolled off the board without any action being taken, so I have filed a sockpuppet report here, if you'de like to comment. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for cleaning up Benjamin Millepied; Wikipedia does not need to resemble Us. — Robert Greer ( talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You commented on a closed discussion, FYI. I reverted your edits/comments. Please take it to RFC/U if the discussion is opened up there. This is to keep everything closed, and everyone calm and to let the discussion either die or go to the appropriate place. Dusti SPEAK!! 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Dusti SPEAK!! 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Dusti SPEAK!! 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Dusti SPEAK!! 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
While it's clear that very little "action" will be taken on this matter, Dusti doesn't get to decide who can or can not have their say. The typical way things are handled at AN/I is that conversation is allowed to go on until it peters out on its own, unless that conversation is total nightmare. While your mileage may vary on "total nightmare", that conversation doesn't even rise to the level of "minor dustup." Best. Bali ultimate ( talk) 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I guess you're right. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
...Well, it may have something to do with the incredibly long watchlist I insist on maintaining, but I did:
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For all your hard work in the background, particularly in keeping crap out of BLPs. When I see your name on my watchlist, I know that's one less mess I have to clean up! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
Keep up the good work! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see this draft RFC/U. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been dealt with at ANI, but since it wasn't I'm following up with an RFC/U as suggested. I have told Ash of my intention to file this, for what it's worth. Let me know if you have any comments or additions (feel free to just make changes). I'll submit it in the next day or so, depending on the feedback I receive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You removed Ke$sha's scheduled performance on SNL citing WP:BLP concerns. Can you please participate in the discussion here. [47] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Fixer23 ( talk) 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
On the talk, I proposed stubifying the article and I just wanted to alert you to it to see what you think. Thanks! Mbinebri talk ← 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi there.
Re. recent additions to Donzaleigh Abernathy which you removed; I spoke to a user in the help channel (at length), and what happened is this;
Donzaleigh ( talk · contribs) added something somewhat promotional and unreferenced, several times. They did not understand Wikipedia policies on WP:BRD etc. They were warned.
Their friend, Madamewus ( talk · contribs), then tried to add exactly the same thing - and was blocked as a sock.
Madamewus came into the IRC help channel, and I explained all about policies etc; they requested an unblock (see their talk page), and they now intend to explain what they would like to add on talk:Donzaleigh Abernathy, and they will provide references.
Therefore, please could you look out for their discussion there, and comment on it. Many thanks, Chzz ► 18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Grace Sharington, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Sharington. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- WikHead ( talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Why was Category:American female adult models inappropriate for India Allen? Jason Quinn ( talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hullaballoo: can you list some of the article pages that you think do belong in this category? Tim Pierce ( talk) 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Hullabaloo. I consolidated the separate TFD nominations you created for the DanniGirl navboxes. Since the function and deletion rationale for each one is identical, it seems likely that they will either all be kept or all be deleted. If you think combining them will be a problem for some reason, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. -- RL0919 ( talk) 19:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I warned you for reverting, meant to hit the ip!! -- Aka042 ( talk) 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
what unreferenced laundry list? don't get so carried away. all of these films are published material and are verifiable sources. you inability to check them out doesn't make it unreferenced. Aditya( talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Although you nominated this category for deletion, the decision was Keep the category (on April 8).
I notice that since then you've removed almost 40 articles from this category. Please could you explain this action? Thanks. MissBeastly 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo.. I'm not seeing how this source is a Wikipedia mirror site. [48]. Any information would be welcome. Thanks.( olive ( talk) 01:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
Hi,
You removed the speedy tag on this with the edit sum "remove speedy, includes credible claim of significance" - but am at a genuine loss to find that in the article - can you elaborate for me. (BTW have taken it to AfD.) Codf1977 ( talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In re this edit [49], are you sure it is not her official website? -- Golbez ( talk) 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, i noticed your edit which added "BLP unsourced" tag to an article that had two references (in the form of external links). Please don't apply the BLP unsourced tag in such cases. You may wish to apply {{ BLP refimprove}} instead. But, i and others are working to address completely unsourced BLP articles under a deadline. Thanks. -- doncram ( talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey again. I thot we had discussion towards some consensus, but i am browsing the April 2010 BLP unreferenced category and come across a new one added by you just now, in this edit. I changed it from "BLP unsourced" to "BLP refimprove" and "nofootnotes". Could you use those two tags instead, and possibly also anything else you want to use to indicate skepticism about IMDB if you wish. But, the article has sources. The sources given as external links are the sources used in creating the article, i believe. So it is not BLP unsourced. The sources are given. Discuss here or at the wt:URBLP page, pls., if you don't agree. -- doncram ( talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nudity in music videos. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in music videos. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You recently removed a citation from this article stating that the linked page ( [55]) is a Wikipedia mirror site. I had thought it might be, but had dismissed that idea since we don't have such an article. But apparently it was speedy deleted as "blatant copyright infringement". Searching on the entire first sentence of the article yields 22 Google results ( [56]), most of which are probably Wikipedia mirrors, but one of which, presumably, is the original source (because if our article was blatant copyright infringement, there had to be a source, and in my experience, 99 times out of 100, if an article is caught as blatant copyright infringement the source is online and some user just copied and pasted it). Do you have any idea which of those search results is not a Wikipedia mirror site? Thanks, cmadler ( talk) 11:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, may I ask why you are removing "adult models" categories, stating that they are "inappropriate", from bios of Playmates and Page 3 girls? This edit summary says "category not supported by article text" despite multiple mentions of topless modelling.
I'd also like to encourage you to WP:archive old sections of this talk page, as it takes a long time to load. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Audrey Kitching. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrey Kitching. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not a spamlink since it holds scene-by-scene information on the biggest market of the adult industry - online media - in the same way IAFD etc hold similar information for offline media (DVD). if you wish to discuss why you are against it there a discussion, including why it holds relevent information, that has been started on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Add to the discussion there including any possible additional or better sources you can find with the same information. NathyWashington ( talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let me get this straight. Individual Playmate articles are being deleted as they are not notable, so as a precautionary measure, we create "List of" articles. Now you're saying we can't create them?!? Tabercil ( talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Good evening Hullabaloo, The article about Hank Skinner is being invaded by a couple of spammers, and already the rule of the 3 reversals should go against them, they have reinserted a link of hate imitating skinner defense site. I am introducing a request of mediation. Adumoul ( talk) 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please tell me (at least a yes or no) if you will be responding meaningfully on the Talk page to Issues 1-10+ at Talk:Lisa Lavie#Troubling deletions. RCraig09 ( talk) 03:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I added that Daisy's natural breast size was 32B. The source is from her own hand-written bio sheet that you can see at the bottom of the cited url. I also thought the video interview on that page would be useful as an external link to show her personality by how she answered a few questions. That link was removed when I first added it. I wasn't logged in at the time. I respectfully request that this not be considered spam. I think it is a good resource to learn more about the person. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinG123 ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello I am just wondering as to why you deleted my contribution as "unsourced gossip". I'ts not "unsourced", infact I can supply many magazine articles, pictures and websites to confirm this. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my question and supply me a way to have these reposted so they corallate with other multimedia publications. I recently donated to wikipedia in quite a large sum and are in no way deliberatly vandalizing pages or the integrity of this site, as a moderator im hoping you can understand where I am coming from. I hope to resolve this issue with you soon, if not to contact wikipedia directly and its owners. thank you
scott storch -scst2890 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scst2890 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Just giving you a heads-up that a large number of images have been pulled from Commons that are sexual in nature, and a number of them were later found to have been in use. I'm contacting you as you're one of the more active editors on the adult stuff here. If you could watch for red-links and give me a heads up on any that you see so I can see about restoring it, I'd appreciate it. Tabercil ( talk) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes we disagree at AFDs... sometimes we agree completely. I've made some decent steps toward improving Anya Verkhovskaya. Care to assist? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Rochelle Loewen:
I have a copyright to this photo, please do not delete it. Maybe you can help me revise it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cdheinz (
talk •
contribs)
01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
What was wrong about the way I referenced? But if it makes the article any better I'm with you mate. Dhulfiqar 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver ( talk • contribs)
The office space is based off shorts that appeared on the show. So it should count towards the section. Why doesnt it? Water78 ( talk)
Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12#Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Since I didn't know what to think of the rational for your removal of that paragraph in this edit to Nastassja Kinski, I asked for instruction on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nastassja_Kinski. I just though to drop you a note. Debresser ( talk) 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Breanne Benson and hereby inform you about this as suggested in the PROD guide. I have added my reasons on the related talk page. Although you are obviously a highly active deletionist, I hope that you are fair enough not to straight push for an AfD especially as I have little experience here so far but followed Wikipedia:BB by creating this article of which relevance I am convinced. Naturally I will try to improve it in style and content if possible but that can't be done by just me alone and within a few days. I respectfully hope you get my point and that I am not here for fighting.
Testales ( talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Trent Franks. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not my fault that moron is vandalizing the Sun page over and over again. What do you expect me to do, have him keep messing up the page for eternity?? The things that I do is not the problem, in fact vandalizing is just as bad as sending personal attacks. I'm sorry, alright, but you need to talk to that IP user and if you are an admin, block him for life. If not, find somebody and I'm sure there will be consequences sent to that IP user.
Xavier ( talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)MR.Texan281
Thanks for removing that allusion to her previous romances. I should have done it myself rather than just clarified the date, but still being somewhat new, I was gutless. It was a throwaway line in a fairly long article, and it had no flesh to it as to what happened or when.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. You're much more knowledgeable about this site than I could ever fathom being, so I hope that you please will note that I'm asking a question over an edit you made that I don't understand. In other words, I did not revert the edit you made a moment ago to Clint Catalyst's page because I have no desire in engaging in some silly "edit war"; on the contrary, I am contacting you in hopes that it's a mistake I will not make again on another page.
What confuses me is: when you removed the information I added in to the Andy Warhol section with the explanation "unsourced" and "citebreaking," I wonder if it's possible that I listed the reference incorrectly (?), because the article not only states the information I added; there's an accompanying photograph of Catalyst with the juxtaposition between Mick Jagger and him. I noticed this when editing Cory Kennedy's page (of whom the source also contains a photograph of her with her "paired likeness"), and made sure to re-phrase the information so that I wasn't plagiarizing it.
Again, I hope I've made it clear that I'm simply trying to learn. I intend no disrespect. Thank you!
Shellacious ( talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved this content from the Palance article to the 65th Academy Awards article to avoid redundancy and undue weight in the two biographies. Is it your position that the affair deserves no coverage in Wikipedia despite being covered in many reliable sources, or have you other plans for it? Best, 86.45.130.146 ( talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to remind you that you were at 3RR there.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi You reverted my changes on Jenny McCarthy without engaging that article's talk section relevant to the edits. I created the talk section well in advance about the edits in order to discuss them. Your revision says "rv BLP violaton/issues", but on the BLP page the three core goals are
Generally, descriptions of Ms. McCarthy as an adult model are more neutral than calling her a model, for the reasons discussed on her article's talk page in the section I created. That characterization is also verifiable. Can you please explain how my edits violate these goals or any of the specific guidelines on BLP? Otherwise I will re-edit the article. I encourage you to respond on the Jenny McCarthy talk page where I have a section for this. Thank you. DGGenuine ( talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Subtrivial" isn't a word. 98.166.109.81 ( talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The English language has a surfeit of words you could use instead. Try trifling, picayune, insignificant, nugatory, or niggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.246.245 ( talk) 18:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you reverted my addition of the BLP IMDB-only refimprove tag to the Anu Agarwal article. Of course it would be ideal to include independent sources, but at the very least the IMDB link verifies that the individual exists and that she in an Indian actress. The IMDB BLP template I used puts the article into the following categories:All articles lacking sources, Articles lacking reliable references from June 2010, Articles sourced by IMDB, and BLP articles lacking sources. As there is concensus to use these tags to separate the articles that only reference IMDB from those that have no links for verification whatsoever as part of this project, could you advise whether you have an issue with the template in general, or if there is an issue with its use in this particular instance? -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I saw that you deleted some information off the personal life section of Ian Erix. I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia accurate and factual but in this case the information which you are referring to as gossip has been substantiated in television interviews by both parties and has been reported on by magazines, newspapers and the like numerous times. There have evem been pubic statements released by the artists involved ant there publicists so I am un-doing your revision for these resasons. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please leave this Wikipedia entry as it is. Thank you kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftlists123 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't get into an editing war with me son. You won't win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.232.230 ( talk) 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I feel you're going way over the line in using a talk page and edit summary to accuse another editor (not me) of vandalism when everyone is doing their best to improve a collective work. Could you do me a favour and check over WP:AGF again?-- Alistair Stevenson ( talk) 20:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey there.
This is kinda complicated. First off, User:AnneBank is not one of the Barbi Twins nor an official representative for them. Just wanna make that clear.
I've been working with the Twins since November on a fairly regular basis on explaining Wikipedia and how it works, as well as how we can properly assure the accuracy of their biography. So here's the sticky part: that edit about Sia being rumored to be gay from E True Hollywood story is one that they want included. They took a part in the production of that documentary, and made a point to have it included.
Now, obviously we can't just include the information as worded, and we're not one to drive rumors. I'm asking, in your opinion, is there a way that you can see to make this inclusive material? I recuse my own opinion on the matter since I'm just serving as the middle-man, so I'd appreciate your opinion so it can be passed along in the explanation of yes or no.
Thanks for your time! Keegan ( talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see you have been given a hard time by a contributor to Chris Noth. You have my every support. I had a particularly nasty and unprovoked run in with this individual a couple of months ago. He/she is a raw beginner who insults mature, regular editors and mainly resorts to righteous indignation in defence of his/her behaviour. I may be completely wrong, and I hope I am, but I also had a suspicion at the time that there may be some socketry involved-- Kudpung ( talk) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The In use template is up. Please respect it. Please revert yourself. ---- moreno oso ( talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Not fuelling, but determined not to allow WP:GAME to become a sanctuary. Kudpung ( talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
stop being such a cockass
gray 4 mayor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebugeja ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I figured that there was something obvious that I was missing and that removing it again would be the safe option plus would trigger someone to sort of tie it all together. In the end, there's nothing to tie together. Dismas| (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
While it's an amusing "theory" and it's nice to see even a cite for it, it's perhaps in bad taste to bring it up in AfDs as an accusation against those making apparently poor keep arguments, I think. For that matter, the tenor of your other comments in at least Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards (where I tend to agree with you and the nom that notability is not established, etc.) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Jordan is questionable. Just a thought, no reply needed. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you possibly give your opinion on this debate Talk:Melissa-Ashley#Un-encyclopedic_Content ? Thanks... Valrith ( talk) 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
Can you please provide reason as to why you undid the changes on Joe Francis' wikipedia page when reliable sources were provided? Thank you AEB1275 ( talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I personally feel that the Rubashkin trial is an important part of Reade's story. How would you suggest the story should be told? Im surprised you removed the whole section. Lower458 ( talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Saw now Lower458 ( talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me run this by you, would this be acceptable according to BLP rules?
On June 21 2010, Judge Reade sentenced former Agriprocessors CEO Sholom Rubashkin, a first time offender, to 27 years in prison for fraud. [1] The "stiff" sentence was unusual in recent history of financial crimes [2] [3], and was more than the sentence prosecutors had requested, 25 years. [4] prompting complaints from the Orthodox Jewish community that Mr. Rubashkin was singled out and treated unfairly by Judge Reade. [5]
Lower458 ( talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
See what I updated at Reade page. I think it is pretty good and within rules.
Removed references to his age and first-time-offender.
BTW, it is a fact that the OJ community was very outspoken re the sentence, but it was not covered in any credible media as of yet. Maybe in the future.
Thanks for coaching me here.
00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 ( talk • contribs)
Alright. Maybe what Im trying to say, and I am, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lower458 ( talk) 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Do an SPI on 70.19.231.165 ? -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm leaving an identical message for all the parties involved in the edit war (Dekkapai, MichaelQSchmidt, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) on this article advising them to take their disagreements on the notability of the nudity in the film to the talk page. All parties involved appear to have valid points so I'm not singling anyone out for possible WP:3RR violations. In the interim, I'm locking the page as is for 72 hours - hopefully by the time the block expires we might have some form of consensus. Remember, the question (as I understand it) is whether the nudity in this film was notable in and of itself. If it is not, then might the information about it be useful elsewhere - say in Nudity in film as expanded details about the 70s. Tabercil ( talk) 12:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
...this diff. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed you reverted a couple of this user additions to sport articles about these awards. Like you, I feel this is spammy and believe if the user can't find third party coverage of this, then it should be removed. To be honest, the fact that this user's body of work is adding this to countless articles is most bothersome to me (just look at the user contributions). I went ahead and spent some time doing mass reversions, but met some resistance from other users (see [58], [59]).
I'm wondering what your thoughts are. Should this be taken to wp:ani? It seems like a rather gray-ish area. I know sports pretty okay and have never heard of this organization or these awards, and all signs show that it's a borderline notable organization
Thank you for your time. If you have no desire to get involved, I understand. -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of extreme urgency, will you please archive at least 90% of this page. I can recommend the use of the MiszaBot. OK, disk space is cheap these days but there is still no need for every message to gobble up 300k bytes on Wikipedia's servers. More importantly, please spare a thought for users with slow connections or creaky old browsers - why should they have to deal with such a ridiculously large page? — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've started a discussion here. Would you please participate? Thanks.
Hi, I don't know if you've noticed but, along with at least four other editors, I've been trying to prevent a fellow anonymous user ( 92.28.129.178 ( talk · contribs) 89.240.160.15 ( talk · contribs)) blanking, and arguably vandalising, two pages. Could you perhaps look again at this [60] reversion? -- 188.221.105.68 ( talk) 23:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. [61] Dugnad ( talk) 09:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you think what was removed in your edits to Dignity (album) was original research? The background section discusses events that happened and the composition section discusses songs that reference them. That is far from OR. – Chase ( talk) 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kascha. Since you had some involvement with the Kascha redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer ( talk) 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that the AfD discussion on Virginia Gentlemen is underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia Gentlemen; could use your input. - Tjarrett ( talk) 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to understand your reasoning in reverting my edit. LIGHTS full legal name is hardly unconstructive. Pick just about any celebrity on Wikipedia and you will see their full legal name. This is important due to confusion that LIGHTS is a stage name. Her full name has three unique sources in the article. Nblsavage ( talk) 22:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
"though she's changed her name to Lights Valerie Poxleitner"
Barring legal documents, what type of source is sufficient? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblsavage ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing the revision. I am not sure why the user was so savage in the edit summary. Cmguy777 ( talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the BLP rule preventing the Rocco Siffredi article from disclosing that Siffredi has genital herpes? He admits this fact publicly, at it is relevant to his career as a sexual performer. Thanks! -- Stybn ( talk) 08:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
In the AfD for Stephano_Barberis your !vote is being discussed at DrV [62]. Any clarification from you would be helpful. Hobit ( talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think if you revisit your comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven Riley (2nd nomination) you might find your tone problematic and unproductive. Incidentally, I missed seeing that AfD while it was open and would have been inclined to add a comment in favor of deletion had I caught it. No reply needed. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 03:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi HW. Please accept my sincere apology regarding the notice I previously posted in this space (which you have already removed). I was operating under the mistaken belief that you had added the text in question, rather than removed it. Clearly your edit was correct, and I should have been more careful. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed this message an IP editor left on another IP's talk page, and tracked it back to the edit he was referring to. Is there consensus that Ask.com is not reliable under WP:RS? I only found one brief discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, and there was some disagreement on it. What's your view? Nightscream ( talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Trying to add information to the 'lingerie line' section of Caprice's page as it is currently very short and does not reflect the last four and a half years that she has spent building her business. All info is accurate and verifiable. It is not intended to have a promotional tone, merely to reflect the growth of the business over several years and supply up-to-date information to the public about Caprice's shift from model to entrepreneur and the growth of her business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura154154 ( talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be a good idea to add a protection policy to Saturday Night Live, i have noticed an increase of vandalism on the front page of the show. Possibly semi-protection would be best, what are your thoughts?
Water78 ( talk) 18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I had the same thought about Ed Cox and David Eisenhower's articles - I was just going over there to see how they're worded when I saw your comment on the noticeboard! Well said. Tvoz/ talk 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Curious as to what claim of significance you noticed... As an aside, kinda ironic, based on comments here, that you're removing CSD tags. Lionel ( talk) 05:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw this. It appears that the subject "scrubbed" her website. I wil try to find a cite. Bearian ( talk) 20:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm really confused as to why you've gone after my edits so strongly. Cassandra Clare is absolutely notable for her Fan Fiction, it's how she became a published author in the first place. As far as I know this has never been disputed before. I've reverted the majority of your changes and added a boatload of published sources. Is there anything else you'd like to discuss about this page? I'd be happy to clarify anything else amiss. Infoaddict1 ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Since you've added the second BLP tag, without clarifying why you think my Lexus Nexus sources are "phony", I've put in a request for editor assistance & mediation. If you have the time to tell me why you believe specific sources are suspect, I would appreciate it. Most all the pages I've sourced are publicly available, and I can provide copies of each article if you don't have access. Thanks! Infoaddict1 ( talk) 00:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, there is currently a content dispute at this article and I'd like to see if an agreement can be reached. Since you are a recent contributor to the article, I'd like to ask if you wish to give your opinion on the matter. I'm not involved in the article myself, I'm only interested in trying to bring everyone to a discussion. If you're interested, please comment at this thread, thank you. -- Atama 頭 06:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Veronika Zemanová, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm willing to be corrected and to see the image deleted if policy requires, but you removed a non-free image from Cocteau Twins with the edit summary "non-free image in BLP infobox". An article about a band is not a BLP. I restored the image but am bringing it to your attention in good faith in case the relevant policy is wider than stated in your edit summary. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious to know precisely how the image I uploaded for Jeanine Mason fails fair use. Although I acknowledge you seem to be quite a stickler-- when it suits you, at least, excuse me for reading most of your talk page --you seem to have very nonchalantly removed this picture, despite it being from a promotional package and therefore clearly valid under fair use. Please explicate. (Also, congratulations: editing your talk page slows my computer to almost hilarious speeds.) Andrew Hsieh, Random Wikian 07:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What did you do to piss this temporary editor off? Drmies ( talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Your deletion explanation was a bit too brief, IMO: "patently invalid rationale provided." The image did have a rationale stated, although short, yet to the point. However, it does not deserve a rapid, almost bot-like, re-deletion without some due consideration.
Part of the rationale for the image was given:
The man is 89 years old and supposedly not in good health. Therefore, it seems reasonable, if not logical, that it meets one of the "acceptable uses" of a non-free image for a BLP such as #8, since both people were were discussed within the article, mostly during their career, it supports an acceptable usage with obvious relevance:
Since you're apparently relying on the reason why it might be "unacceptable," as in #1, I was using the clearly stated "exception" to that rule:
So I agree to some minds the decision here could be based on a coin toss, as the image could be justified as acceptable or not. But I personally don't think the BLP, especially an important one in the entertainment industry, warrants a brusque summary only. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just expanded and referenced this article so this is just a historical note, but you removed an addition about her hosting a comedy night, stating "unreferenced addition to blp". Sure, it was unsourced, but it wasn't likely to be controversial and a look in Google News for "Jenny Slate" AND "Big Terrific" would have very quickly shown that it was correct. Reverting all unsourced additions keeps articles "pure", but it also keep them from developing, which some quick fact checking would avoid. Fences& Windows 00:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
As an established user I definitely trust your knowledge and good faith, but there's still a bit of a problem here. Even if the subject is notable, the article, as it was written, definitely did not indicate that it is, or why. Furthermore, as an unsourced BLP, it would be subject to WP:PRODBLP even if undeleted. I'm not seeing any versions of the article in its history that address either of these problems. Lastly, the article contained so little information that if it were recreated in a manner that addressed these issues, it would be virtually just as easy to remake from scratch as from the scant information this article contained. I hope this makes sense to you. If I'm missing something, let me know. - Vianello ( Talk) 22:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
G12, yet. Have you seen the deletion record? I was gonna PROD based on the assertion of significance-- national level board. You got in ahead of me with a G12. Will see what happens. I do wish the campaign mangers would read up on WP:politician before putting themselves through the aggravation. cheers, Dloh cierekim 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Point taken but it did sound strange the way it was phrased. Dismas| (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I explained the fair use rationale to Betacommandbot already. The man's career ended in 1974. There is a limit to how far one can go to attempt to illustrate how a man appeared during the relevant period of his life, especially when that period is over 35 years gone. Summary removal of the image without even trying to contact the editors of the page does not help fix the issue. DarkAudit ( talk) 05:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Hustler magazine as a source please. Tabercil ( talk) 18:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This edit by an anonymous account done directly after your edits in support of them appears to be the most transparently clear of sockpupperty that has ever existed.
I'm posting this here because I want to hear an explanation from you about this before I take it to Wikipedia administration. You deserve a fair hearing. Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I could report you for this, but I won't if you would- for one- stop to actually make a valid argument for your edits on a talk page.
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mayoralty_of_Michael_Bloomberg. Sugar-Baby-Love ( talk) 02:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It'll probably still have to go through AFD, but I suppose it was a rather unclear speedy deletion. Sorry about that, · Andonic Contact 08:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please stop removing images as you did in the articles Joseph Wapner & Jorge Ortiz de Pinedo. First of all, those images you removed are free images & have fair use rationales as approved by WP:Fair use. Also, we do not remove such images except in the case of vandalism, or unless there is already a free image of that person on Wikipedia--That is certainly a no-no. It is very important that you review WP:Fair use before you remove any other images. You may also discuss this change in the article's Discussion Page & wait for a concensus before you make the edit.
- MegastarLV ( talk) 5:54 August 2010
please do not change the edits i made to some pornstars pages yesterday. all of the info as far as their birth names is correct and widely available on IMDB.com, you can go check for yourself. as far as some of the other info you removed i really don't have a problem with it, some of it was dubious/silly, and i'll admit i made some unnecessary edits on 1 or 2 pages but the birth names are all CORRECT info so please do not change them back again. if you do i will just keep reverting them back (i have alot of time on my hands and it will be no problem for me)
P.S. - the middle names of 2 of the pornstars i corrected are not on IMDB however they are correct. they are from a forum which is no longer online and the other was said in a movie i watched (yes, i'm a fan of porn, i'm assuming you are also). i apologize if i sound rude but i'm a little annoyed that you went and removed all the data i took the time to look up and enter. again, if you change anything i will constantly revert back the correct info i entered so please leave it the way it is so we don't have to let this get out of hand, thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummy Dummy ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Please let me know what's your point to say my edit on Jenna Haze's article is spam. I'm adding a new award she just won. I'm not using as source the Fame Registry site since it is a new annual Award. I gave a 3rd party reliable source (XBiz) giving coverage to the Fame Registry Awards. If you don't know it, XBiz is one of the biggest sites for adult news. Purplehayes2006 ( talk) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This is concerning the Newsweek quote concerning Glenn Beck and the Tea Party Movement. I understand that Newsweek is considered by some to be a "reliable source". In fact, I usually would as well. However, just take a look at the quote:
"Tea partiers are driven by the belief that the America that elected Barack Obama isn't their America, and Beck comforts them by telling them they're right: that the America they love, the America they now feel so distant from, the America of faith and the Founders and some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past, is still there, waiting to be awakened from Obama's evil spell. And he flatters them by saying that the coastal elites are too stupid or too lazy to figure out what's really going on; only his loyal viewers are perceptive enough to see the truth and, ultimately, to save the nation."
First of all, this author BEGINS by somehow reporting what is in the minds of members of the tea party. Then he continues by somehow knowing that their motivation is by flattery? How does the author gain this insight into the minds of Tea Partiers? Then the author speaks of Tea Partiers wanting to go back to "some sort of idyllic Leave It to Beaver past" and being against "Obama's Evil spell". This is clearly a mocking tone. How can you possibly consider this quote to be neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smpf38 ( talk • contribs) 02:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether the quote is "neutral" is a red herring. It's included in the article as represeenting a nontrivial range of opinion concerning Beck, and it does that reasonably well. NPOV requires that the article as a whole be balanced, not that it be neutered. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It does not do it well. Look at the other factual information above and below the Newsweek quote. This quote doesn't fit there. It throws the information under the heading of Glenn Beck and the Tea Party movement out of balance. Each subheading should have balance as well as the overall article. Furthermore, the quote simply is not a well orchestrated opinion from the Newsweek author because he pretends to know what is going on in the minds of all kinds of different individuals and does so in a mocking tone. Surely you can see that. Smpf38 ( talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Surely I deny that. The comments that you see as "pretending to know" is limited to the opening clause, where it's a fair and reasonably neutral summary of a view that's been prominently stated by tea-partiers. The material you describe as "mocking" relates instead to Bweck's own commentary, and relates only to what he says, not his supposed state of mind. And it's mainstream analysis, milder than (say) Stewart or Olbermann. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Tea partiers talk about "Leave it to Beaver"? Who in the tea party? And when has Glenn Beck called coastal elites "stupid or lazy"? Smpf38 ( talk) 03:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I assume that this is the page you meant, since Sadif Munir doesn't exist. Your removal of the speedy template was incorrect since there is no assertion that she meets the relevant guideline, in particular Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.... Even if she is notable, the article is written like spam (which is the other reason I gave in my deletion edit summary), and is an unsourced biography of a living person (the "references" are spam and do not support the claims made). It stays deleted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
On a page called i've introduced a new controversy section(backed by very powerful sources) on
All India Trinamool Congress, some users've reverted my edits claiming my sources as unreliable ones(but as per wikipedi's policy they are powerful). I've posted an RSN, which didnt suite one user Active Banana(he has roll back rights). So he had roll backed my RSN. Now I am confused what to do. Please tell me whether the following sources are OK or not:
Main Story on AITC-Maoist Nexus in Mail Today
Story in CNN IBN
Both of them are very well known Newspapers/Tv channels of India.
Please help quickly in the matter. Please reply soon.
Basuupendra (
talk)
13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there a consensus that all Tony Award nominees meet WP:ENT or are otherwise notable? I'm willing to believe there could be and I just don't know it. If so, maybe that could be added to WP:ENT which seems awefully barebones for a guideline anyway. Novaseminary ( talk) 00:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You're telling me he is notable enough to merit hundreds of articles about his films, a good majority of them being unsourced and without mention in any reliable sources (at least, I have 10 of them so far)? EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted a large amount of material on this article. Unfortunately, I see that much of it had been reliably sourced- for example, you added tags for citations being needed on assertions that, before your edit, were cited to reliable sources, such as the website of the production company that bought the rights to the movie she was interviewed in, pictures taken by Life magazine, and the major source for the article, a book by Brian Alexander which provided her real name and interests. I have restored all material that was sourced reliably, in addition to toning down some of the advertising-like statements. Try not to pull the trigger quite so fast next time? Full-page excerpts from the book that confirmed the material in the article were an immediate top ten hit on Google Books. Thanks. — Chromancer talk/ cont 02:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Just reality checking - do my arguments that the original 2nd AfD nom was invalid (fishing expedition), and the post-close flip mandates a no-consensus, hold any water? Noooobody responded to that. -- Lexein ( talk) 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you removed the image at my draft page User:Lefteh/Paula_Brooks? Lefteh ( talk) 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Re [65]: We do not permit the usage of per character images on "List of" type articles. There's been several, several debates about this in the past. The practice is to restrict such usage to a primary cast photograph ( example, and/or to restrict usage of per character images to crucial, central characters. By the very definitions in the sections listed, the images were being used on secondary characters.
The argument you're using of there being substantial content has been used before and failed. The reality here is these are not central characters. Further, the content in these sections is almost completely unreferenced. Wikipedia insists on reliance on secondary sources in order to maintain neutrality. This is not a fan site. Including such large, undocumented sections in an article isn't within our guidelines. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). So these "lengthy" sections do not belong, unless secondary sources can be found to support them. It's massive overkill in writing about these characters. It's not enough to just have content. You have to have well sourced content. You're unlikely to get such lengthy content for a secondary character.
If you disagree with this, I strongly suggest you take the issue up at either WP:NFCR or WT:NFC. Do not restore the images; doing so violates policy and guideline. If you have questions, ask. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh I'll definitely restore that image unless you can provide some better rationale. I'm only posting here first in the interested of preventing an edit war. Your assumption that it is "obvious" does not qualify. Licensing has been clearly cited in the article and I will happily point you in the direction of the promotional press material it was included in if you insist on being obtuse and arbitrary. Lahnfeear ( talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello mate. Just letting you know that a new user ( Perthmonsit) is undoing all your recent edits. Could he be a sock puppet of someone you know perhaps? Jevansen ( talk) 03:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Is this better? I keep forgetting to change the edit summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 23:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Tell me how you think an article that's more template than content is salvageable. Go on. Am I just not allowed to redirect anymore or what? Why don't we just create one-sentence stubs on everyone who's ever lived? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I was given permission to use it by Mr. Mair himself. Prescottbush ( talk) 03:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Would you like me to semi-protect your userpage? Enigma msg 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Both User:1exec1 & User:WikiTome have looked at the Mark Ryden article. Looks Great! You will see I have added much reference, please do not undo with out talking. [66] [67] Thanks, 69.238.167.40 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC).
Have you considered archiving your talk page, it is incredibly long and may cause certain editors with slow connections lots of problems considering there are now over 300 sections, you don't have to since it is your talk page. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:42pm • 09:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Why should I have to discuss it? It's a total no brainer. 100% of the content is already at Big Time Rush (band), so it probably even qualifies for A10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stay out of that posting and STOP undoing items. I have been a senior member of her website and inner circle for sometime now. Vicky & Rockerr (current husband & mgr) kabitz with me on everthing that is posted. Refrain from undoing anything. If you have a question or I need to improve upon something - ASK FIRST! Db54 ( talk) 21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Listen you dickweed - Dismas and I worked out a considerably amount of intormation that was previously there so don't make erroneous assumptions. It is not ADVERTISING nor is it PUBLICITY but has a bonafide connection to IT's SOURCE! THE LINKS on ALL ARTICLES connect in somewhere and somplace to PUBLICITY. The REFERENCEs are reflective of her history IN HER OWN WORDS and YOU DOn't GET much better than that! AND STOP UNDOING AWARDS and REFERENCES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 ( talk • contribs) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
When the shoe fits you have to wear it. I am opening up a complaint aagainst you and your UNAUTHORIZED undo without any discussion beforehand! FUrthermore, this is a quote to me from Vicky with regards to WikPedia and HER PAGE (NOT yours) How strange the page is almost empty, looks like someone stripped it! The link to the yahoo group is wrong, and there are barely any other links. there are a million interviews and articles on avn, but they don't list any of them... what a mess!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Db54 ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You will die you have grandkids so all the stuff you do will be reversed some day get off the computer and stop wasting what little time you have left of you life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.44.132.23 ( talk) 23:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have made a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP-hopping_vandal_returns. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment on made Saturday Night Live (season 36) The confirmed on air contains a source. It's made by the show, it is the strongest source given. Just because it aired on TV does not mean a thing over wise.
Water78 ( talk • contribs) 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Unless of course NYTimes decides to take down the source. Water78 ( talk
What is happening with you? my editions are good. I took an example article, Ali Larter, it has a similar information: film grosses, critical reception, and more. Stop, please. We really need to read about her and her movies, but you're right, the stuff can involve the article subject. with related to special effects, i edited the article. It has not information about effects. 201.233.240.206 ( talk) 13:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm totally ok with you going to the original ANI post and seeking block review; I'll go along with whatever consensus is there. Obviously, I feel it was appropriate (which is why I did it) but I won't pretend to be perfect. Rahter than discuss between ourselves, let's go to where others will join in - that also helps avoid splitting discussion up. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I knew there was something up with this editor, but I couldn't put my finger on it. Very hard to deal with, not a smidgen of collegiality. I wish I knew who it was. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 03:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Watch out for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. All of your false edit summaries do nothing but stack up against you. Your interpretations of policy are way off, and your unhelpful edits are unwelcome in this article. Read the supporting citations.-- Lexein ( talk) 22:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
-- Lexein ( talk) 07:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, yes, I was being bitchy. But can you please tell me what was wrong with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reggie_Young? That was clearly me self-closing as a withdrawn AFD, which is entirely appropriate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#False_accusations. Thank you. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 22:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily dispute your decision, please see my talk page - jc37 20:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article J. G. Quintel, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
Granted that this artist has a charted production, it is charted only in the Indie chart, which does not qualify, I believe, for inclusion under the policy outlined in WP:BAND.-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 21:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you edited the personal section from the Tess Broussard article.
I created the article and would like to add back a reworked section. here it is:
Personal Life
Broussard was engaged to wrestling star Stone Cold Steve Austin [6] from 2002 to 2004. Their breakup was due to domestic violence, steroid and alcohol abuse. [7] [8] [9] [10]
What are your thoughts?
Thanks.
Dk4wiki ( talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the wikibias website? could you give me the link? i tried to search it and nothing came up.
thanks.
Dk4wiki ( talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you can find a source to the claim made on the article because I can't might be something to do with the name used. Mo ainm ~Talk 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Poorly sourced? I'm sorry is a news article not good enough now? Please don't take this personally but I think a news article is sourced well enough. Regards, — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:35pm • 09:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
had started this pg last yr and lately whatever additions I make from third party bios found etc you keep deleting. Why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Abbott_(director)
I already went through this recently with someone else just coming and undoing everything for no reason. Now this page is much worse off and skeletal then where it was before your deletes. This is not helping when you just delete info for no reason. What is the reason for this? Everything that been added from from a third party bio and approved by the blp board. I am undoing your edits, please do not keep undoing whatever I work on your doing this on other pages too.
You simply stated (diff | hist) . . Jennifer Abbott (director); 18:24 . . (-654) . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (unreferenced etc) Yet clearly it WAS added a new reference page of the author bio website it came from written about this person. So it was referenced why did you delete saying unreferenced. Did you look at it before you go and just undo everything? If I am doing something wrong please advise or explain and I can correct whatever it may be. Thank you Nobelone ( talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I ran into an IP hopper you dealt with earlier ([* [68]). Over the past few weeks they've been making low-level disruptive changes to date formats. Earlier they were changing instances of "Walt Disney" to "Walter Disney". From your edit summary you seem to know a little more of the editing pattern than I do. Let me know if you think this is part of a longer term problem.]
Here are some recent diffs to underline my point (the IPs are actually sequential and the focus on Disney and the style changes strongly suggest the same person).
[69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] (one that was recently repeated)
Shadowjams ( talk) 02:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You deleted my edit on Matthew Marsden. I said he jumped from 13,500 feet. The Golden Knight he jumped with said on the video on youtube that they were going "14,000 feet straight down". Also only pro military people get asked to jump with the Golden knights.
Secondly on the dvd extras on Rambo Marsden said he was pro military. He also appeared on the "Troopathon" in support of the military. http://www.gawkk.com/matthew-marsden-and-friends-on-troopathon-2010-standing-for-our-soldiers/discuss
Marsden's wife was pregnant with his third child at the premier of Transformers. http://www.zimbio.com/Matthew+Marsden/articles/BkjHMdIv6Zw/Parents+Matthew+Marsden+Nadine+Micallef
Please put these back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.6.157 ( talk) 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
To Hullaballoo. I am not claiming to be an expert on many things. But on this subject I am more or less an expert due to the fact I have worked with it since spring 1999. Kosovo is according to the vast majority of the IC (International community), ie UN, OSCE, EU, IOC and 122 of the worlds 192 countries, a Serbian province today. What it will be in a year or in 50 years, no one knows. As today as we speak, Kosovo is not even close to be an own country. Like I said, this could be changed. BUT, I thought that Wikipedia should reflect as close as we could come to the truth RIGHT NOW. Am I wrong ? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.156.162 ( talk) 19:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
To Hullaballoo. I am not claiming to be an expert on many things. But on this subject I am more or less an expert due to the fact I have worked with it since spring 1999. Kosovo is according to the vast majority of the IC (International community), ie UN, OSCE, EU, IOC and 122 of the worlds 192 countries, a Serbian province today. What it will be in a year or in 50 years, no one knows. As today as we speak, Kosovo is not even close to be an own country. Like I said, this could be changed. BUT, I thought that Wikipedia should reflect as close as we could come to the truth RIGHT NOW. Am I wrong ? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.156.162 ( talk) 20:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Some months ago, someone created an article about Conor Clifford, and then someone deleted it because he hasn't made his official debut. So, why Jan Šebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló and Jhon Pírez have to have their own articles if they haven't made their official debut in any team? Now, another thing happens, the four first articles that I said violate the copyright rules, as you can see in this links: Jan Sebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló. I'll be waiting for your answer. Archibald Leitch ( talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Some months ago, someone created an article about Conor Clifford, and then someone deleted it because he hasn't made his official debut. So, why Jan Šebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló and Jhon Pírez have to have their own articles if they haven't made their official debut in any team? Now, another thing happens, the four first articles that I said violate the copyright rules, as you can see in this links: Jan Sebek, Sam Walker, Jacopo Sala, Aliu Djaló. I'll be waiting for your answer. Archibald Leitch ( talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Content in these BLP articles is copy violation and if a player has not a first team appearance he is generally not wiki notable.
Off2riorob (
talk)
21:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The haven't first team appearances for gods sake! How can you say they deserve an article? Archibald Leitch ( talk) 21:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
BUT ENTIRETY OF THE ARTICLE IS COPYVIO!! You should look the links that I gave you again. But forget it!!! I'm tired of this shit!! I said it and I will say it again: YOUR RULES ARE SHIT!!!! Those fucking articles are clearly copyvio and those players haven't made any first team appearance!!!!! That's what I hate about your shitty rules!!! You delete any fucking article about any fucking player because he didn't do a first team debut but when somebody report shitty articles as the ones that I gave you, you say that THIS SHIT and THIS ANOTHER SHIT AND I'M TIRED OF THAT!!!! Go fuck yourself and get a life you FUCKING NOOBS!!!! thank you for your time. Archibald Leitch ( talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You just reverted him. I'm convinced he's not new, and based on today's behaviour, probably evading a previous block. Any idea as to who he might be?— Kww( talk) 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Christopher G. Donovan, don't you find it at little odd that the CTHDO2010 wsa created today and had only edited that one page until today because it was an IP user, and is likely somehow tied to the campaign? Markvs88 ( talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know that the artist's article has now been deleted. That's why I tagged the album for A9; the artist looked like a slamdunk A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 01:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
RE: Recent reverts... I will do the proper thing (per Wiki) and contact you to discuss this instead of dispute it with edit wars. You need to explain to me what source isn't acceptable and why. There were more than one given. I'm not sure what you are disputing. There were several different edits made and you can't toss out the entire edit. I expanded on what was already there. Someone removed "dispite public rumors" that had no source for a long time. I did 80% (over time) of this article. So I know a bit about it. If you would actually VIEW the sources, there is a video of the show where it is said. So you can not argue that. Both sources contain a video source. So even if the site isn't accepted, you know it really happened or was said. You need to explain yourself and not just say I'm tossing links in where they don't belong when there are supporting pre-existing context. The info is fine, but if you are determined to dispute it regardless, you need to provide proof it is not legit. I would appreciate handling this a mature and logical way as required of us on here. I seem to be the only one lately caring to do that but so be it. I'm not trying to be right or get my way, I'm helping the article and making it better. You need to show me specifically what isn't acceptable, remove it, leave the rest. Not "toss the baby out with the bath water". I know it's easier to just revert everything, but that is not the right thing to do. If the links should be put after sentences or paragraphs, then please move it should they be mid-sentence. I'm trying to figure out what your dispute is and resolve it. We are supposed to do so this way before reverting things back-and-forth. I've explained myself, I hope you do too because it's not clear. This isn't an attack, it's just a discussion to resolve the matter. I appreciate it kindly. Thank you and have a good day/night. 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 02:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Please disregard, I resolved this with another editor who claimed the content was fine but the proper way to tag references was not. Thanks for your interest, nonetheless. I usually post with [ ] and someone just fixes the format, without undoing the entire edit. My bad if it was done wrong. Just needed clarity. Have a nice day/night! 63.131.4.149 ( talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, You removed my addition to the Gordon Nuttall page this morning. I believe an initial superlative about the level of corruption places the rest of the page in context. The CM changed the link during the day and it is now found at the Herald-Sun site.
Is your problem a) loss of the link to the original source (today's CM headline) or b) the description of Nuttall as our most notoriously corrupt politician? I was going to simply re-insert the sentence with the corrected citation but thought you may have reservations about b). If so, can you name a more corrupt Australian politician?
Please advise. Didactik ( talk) 11:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey, can you please tell me how the Tears, Lies and Alibis redirect was inappropriate? The article in question is one sentence long and completely devoid of sources. WP:NMUSIC clearly supports redirection in this case, so I feel a discussion over it would be superfluous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 19:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I agree entirely with your rationale and I have no problems whatsoever with your removing the CSD notice. However, this does not avoid the issue, that in its present form, the page is extremely promotional in support of a political candidature, and has been posted shortly before an upcoming election. As you suggested, the page is not unsalvagably editable, but this must be done very quickly in order to demonstrate that an encyclopdia is not a political platform. Whilst assuming good faith, I do feel that the creator may uknnowingly be gaming the system with his appeals at talk:Jeremy Karpen, User talk :ConcentratedAllPurposeCleaner, and could possibly be a sockpuppet here: User talk:Jeremykarpen. Cheers, -- Kudpung ( talk) 01:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged your talk page for the archiving bot as its very long, so that you don't have to trawl through hundreds of old threads to read your messages. If you don't like it just remove the code at the top of the page-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 04:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, you're the subject of a discussion at ANI. I'm not involved. Just notifying you, as I would want the same, and it's procedure. See:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saebvn ( talk) 04:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a Requests for Comment on you. Your comments are welcomed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 18:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Please explain why having 20 sources doesn't remove the need for a {{BLPsources}}
tag.
Hearfourmewesique (
talk)
08:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Just thought you'd like to know after you reverted me Sarekofvulcan stepped in and reverted you on Hitomi Kobayashi, i wouldn't revert him if i was you, go to the talkpage and speak with dekkipedia to gain consensus, you've got an admin now telling you your 3rr does not apply argument doesn't wash now-- Lerdthenerd ( talk) 17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
HW, if it's such an "undisputed" NFCC violation, nominate the image for deletion which would entail a discussion rather than edit warring on the article page. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted some of your edits to Nessa Devil. You removed 4 sources. I restored two of them, that were reliable. (I added info about them in Talk:Nessa Devil) -- Neo139 ( talk) 00:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them:
El País, published for instance in nacional sites, culture, books 2006: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Artur/Balder/triunfa/narrativa/infantil/debuta/historica/elpepicul/20060610elpepicul_5/Tes?print=1
On the other hand it is strange that someone can state that may be the Artur Balder of Little Spain is not the same as the Artur BAlder of the books, since at the official site of the documentary you can download the press kit in high resolution, and in the chapter that it dedicates to the director, Artur Balder is the author of El Evangelio de la Espada, Crónicas de Widukind, and this is too in the GERMAN wikipedia stated. Both links:
http://little-spain.us/Little_Spain_Prensa_2010.pdf
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artur_Balder
The Little Spain official site links to an official Flickr site where is clear to see the references of Artur Balder. I invite you to visit the www.little-spain.us
Artur Balder is author of, as far as I know, 7 novels, some them translated into 8 languages, including nederlands, italian, french, with major publishing houses. The publishing house in spanish for his fantasy fiction is Random House Mondadori. You can read at the corporate website of RHM the recommendation of the author:
http://www.randomhousemondadori.com/Sellos/SellosFicha.aspx?Idioma=En&id=15
The historical fiction is being published by Edhasa, a major prestigious publishing house in Spain:
The official site for its last historical fiction, published in november 2010, had a shortfilm for promotion of the saga, and all the information is available in english, german and spanish, with an excerpt of the book in russian, too:
htt://www.widukind.eu
References caused by announcement the documentary of "Little Spain":
Looking at the search result you can see ALL the spanish media in the list in the first 100 results, from La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, La Razón... Just all. There is consensus about the relevance of the work of Artur Balder in relationship with the restoring of the historical memory of a large number of immigrants in New York City and Little Spain.
The information, that was not intended primarly to the american media, was however trnaslated from agency EFE AMERICA reports into the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Latin American Herald Tribune, and translated into english:
Particularly the link to The Latin American Herald Tribune:
http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13003&ArticleId=378105
And this is the resulat of a first private screening at La Nacional, the Spanish Benevolent Society of NY, last november, for the Spanish media and media agencies. Wikipedists have to know that the documentary is going to be released in a major film festival of New york city in 2011, but I cannot write down the name since it will be 100% sure.
The IMDb has accepted the credits of Balder's work in film industry during the last 10 years:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3470412/
Articles about Artur Balder are present in about 10 languages of Wikipedia, included the german one.
I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past.
Lolox76 (talk)-- Lolox76 ( talk) 17:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Integrity | ||
Even though we're on opposite sides of the inclusionst/deletionist divide with respect to the article in question, it was downright refreshing to read your well-reasoned, well-worded, calm and collected argument in favour of deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Roxxx (2nd nomination), considering how some of the other editors voting for deletion decided to go about phrasing their arguments. Keep up the fine, cool-headed work. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC) |
TPH is under a lot of heat for WP:CIVIL violations, but that doesn't give you a license to behave similarly]. His base assertion seems correct: there aren't any sources for that thing.— Kww( talk) 14:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you're interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Lande. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Trebor ( talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have reverted another editor, it is pretty much mandatory that you discuss it with him. That's how the WP:BRD cycle works. If you refuse to discuss your edits, I will consider blocking you on those grounds alone.— Kww( talk) 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I seem to have repeated that horrible incivility for which I was instantly blocked-- and right on the ANI board, viewable by multiple Admins! Oh goodness gracious!!! But what's this, what's THIS? Going on an hour later, and not so much as an eyebrow raised. Could it POSSIBLY be that the block was unjust and biased, but since it was done by a popular loudmouth with a large following, "consensus" approved it? Oh no. That would mean that the "rules and policies" here are just a big joke. Well, apologies for the incivility anyway, and for all the bile spewed at the RfC. And thanks for helping to drive me away from this madhouse. Regards, and happy editing. Dekkappai ( talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm curious why you removed the deletion tag for the Pulse album. The artist exists, but the album does not (it has not been released - it is expected to be released in Feb). I can't see how it can be kept under Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball or under any notability criteria (If you look up the 'reviews' a number appear to be on sites where anyone can publish reviews, and so are not RS). Can you reconsider this one? Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 05:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article claims that she was born in 1930, then says that her career started in 1930. I would say that qualifies as a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
TPH made significant changes to his comment above while I was replying to it, removing a disproved claim that illustrates a serious problem with his editing. ::I did do a Google search in English, Azerbaijani and Russian. Even so, it's clear you found something that I didn't. You were right. (But can you please lay off calling me "incompetent"? There's no need for repeated insults.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 03:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't look like TPH alerted you of the AN/I discussion concerning you, so I'm doing it.
Incidentally, would you please consider archiving your talk page? Thanks, 28bytes ( talk) 04:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Please stop trying to find flaws in everything. Removing sourced information in such a brutal way, in addition removing a perfectly accepted free image is not acceptable. You can try to be bold and add a reference or request for a reference instead of resorting complere removal. This attitude of yours is unacceptable and the next time it happens, you will be reported at ANI. Shahid • Talk2me 00:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi HW. Thanks for removing the "speedy" for Ieuan Morris - error of judgement on my part. May see you at the AfD. Thanks again! -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Wack Pack 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/Wack Pack 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. Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I am currently revising the content of this page to avoid another deletion. This includes checking all references, citations that are needed, and addressing aditional concerns (COI, etc.). We do not intend this to be a glorified or biased bio page, yet rather to establish Beth S. Green in conjunction with her present status with NYIP (New York Institute of Photography), and other notible references which should be acceptable to wiki's standards and guidelines, in a neutral point of view.
If you can give me just a few days to accomplish that, it would be greatly appreciated since I can only work on this during evening hours, or limited hours, online.
Thank you for your consideration.
Drmidi2010 ( talk) 23:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia says “To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.”
And goes on to say, “The most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.”
According to Wikipedia, the two articles and three books in the bibliography are all secondary sources. The four films in the bibliography and the Nadoolman interview are all primary sources.
The secondary sources mention the fact that Lucas worked on the documentary while Mackenna’s Gold was being filmed, and that Mackenna’s Gold motifs are present throughout the Indiana Jones franchise. Additionally, the films reference each other the same as any books do.
The Films in Review article has the quote, “We chose The Secret of the Incas (A 1954 action thriller starring Charlton Heston), which more than any other single film, Spielberg and Lucas drew upon for inspiration…”
TCM’s Richard Harland Smith states plainly, “Certainly, the George Lucas/ Lawrence Kasdan/Philip Kaufman story and screenplay for Steven Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark was rooted in the serial tropes of Hollywood westerns but the coincidence cuts even deeper. Present on location was George Lucas himself…”
WikiPolicy states: “Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.”
I’m not sure what else you expect to see here, Hullaballoo – are you wanting direct quotations from each source, as well as DVD counter-stops for the films? (I thought people with grandkids were supposed to be happy. LOL.) Dutchmonkey9000 ( talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Al Roker: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -- Flyguy33 ( talk) 16:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion to the other admin and as to why did they delete "Miracle at Donna" as a speedy deletetion.
any suggestions on how to get this written right ? so it doesnt get deleted?
best Steven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpublicist ( talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please remember that if you're trying to suppress information, posting it on the most widely watched board won't necessarily help... :-) -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 16:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I work with Jason Gardiner and notice that you keep changing his age and DOB on this page. To confirm his DOB is 6th Nov 1971 making Jason 39 not 45. Please stop changing this entry, If you want to discus this further I can provide you with contact details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.10.250 ( talk) 11:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I think it was previously deleted because, according to the talk page of Jewtonian ( talk · contribs), who started it, there was a tag to delete it on December 10. It was recreated in January. It was probably deleted with a title including the YISE. I am a tad confused, so you may be able to discern this better than I currently am. Thanks and happy editing.-- TM 05:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
HW, you need to get a couple of ideas straight. First, there is no connection between me (former Magpie1892) and the IP listed. Simply checking the addresses would show this, if you could be bothered. Second, I was having issues with you long before my previous ban; you know this, so I don't know why you pretend otherwise. I'm hardly alone in having issues with you, as we see daily. Just understand that I can and will edit whenever it suits me, OK? -- 85.237.211.208 ( talk) 10:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
What is the "credible claim of significance" in the article? The only reference given is that of hoonur.com which anybody can create. The movie link doesn't contain her name. So, where's the credibility in this article? Boolyme बूलीमी Chat बोलो!! 17:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Good catch on the ref - it looked good to me, so I never followed it up. The IP socks and brand-new editor User:Scott Scott Hayden are editwarring to reinstate, so keep an eye on it -- I'm at 3RR. I've filed a sockpuppet report here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello, can you please have a look at this article. I feel as if it being unfairly labeled by a different editor. You have revised it in the past. The editor is using old revisions no longer relevant to the article against the current article. I have followed every rule and the piece as it stands is notable, has third party references, and is written from a neutral point of view. Any advice would be helpful as I am finding it very difficult to please certain editors. Thanks so much! SJayQ ( talk) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you removed the tag. The reason I tagged was [88] and en pages only. Do you still think the man is notable? The creator of the article is his son. The interwiki links are not correct. Click any. It will bring you to a category page. Oda Mari ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could tell me where in the article there is a credible claim of significance? Regards Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I would appreciate it greatly if you could actually look at the references to the document I edited today. They are all credible and from Philadelphia Newspapers souch as the Inquirer, Daily News, and The Daily Pennsylvanian. You speak about nuetrality? That does not exist in its current form on this page, where she is lauded with praise. The negativity must be expressed also. I think you are being overly vague, in your comments as to why you feel you had to change what is printed facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcgain ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Please tell what is wrong with the information I posted on the Elizabeth Mitchell page as I do not see anything wrong with it as it is fully referenced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mua27 ( talk • contribs) 21:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You've give a reason for removing the Prod but could you explain it for me. You say significance - do you mean significant coverage of the subject? I notice there is an "Identifcation controversy" but the actual section does not mark out how important the controversy is, eg if it has an effect outside coverage of the subject itself. In all I just have my doubts about this. I'd like your opinion first and I hope you won't take it personally should I disagree. GraemeLeggett ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
There is a message for you at Raigad Ropeway talk page. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 04:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Adding the trout was classic!-- Milowent • talk blp-r 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to remove text like you did here, could you at least make sure you're not breaking a citation? That particular LA Times piece was cited twice in the Ginger Lynn article. Tabercil ( talk) 23:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
ANI opened on your vandalism of Kerry Katona. Thanks, -- 82.41.20.82 ( talk) 10:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
hello the IP 82.41 reported you to AIV, I just removed the report, as it was a bit suspicious, is this IP angry at you for something?-- Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm not Scottish. I'm English. I know a lot about Ross Laidlaw though - his books are superb. -- 82.41.20.82 ( talk) 00:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Write This Down (band)'s notability. the article does not explain how they meet WP:BAND. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I am surprised that you get hounded when you restore material that is a) not only absolute nonsense, b) been deleted several times and c) reference it to an article which doesn't even mention the "fact"! -- Shylocksboy ( talk) 00:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Just noticed this - At the very least, the news article must include content related to the claim it is cited for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC) You don't even follow your own rules. -- Shylocksboy ( talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I've requested Mfmoviefan ( talk · contribs) be blocked for spamming. From what I've seen so far, this looks like part of long-running spamming for Mark Sells. You mentioned sockpuppetry on his talk page. Can you provide details on the other socks? So far, I've just some ip's (all but one in the Denver, CO area) and Mark Sells' account: 65.218.133.150 ( talk · contribs)(St Louis, MO), 67.176.123.201 ( talk · contribs), 71.229.160.234 ( talk · contribs), 71.229.171.157 ( talk · contribs), 75.71.22.124 ( talk · contribs), 174.51.211.253 ( talk · contribs), & Thereeldeal ( talk · contribs). -- Ronz ( talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Hannah Conda, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't completely understand why you would completely remove the entire "Personal Life" section from the Lauren Conrad page. I am trying to make it updated and to the standards of wikipedia. Yes, maybe The Hollywood Gossip is not an appropriate enough of a source. But the Access Hollywood article was, and your only reasoning for removal of that was that "February 2010 is not current." If you are going by that standard, much of the information on wikipedia would be "outdated." Ryanlively ( talk) 23:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I've undone most of the destructive editing you did in Nudity in film, in which you deleted my entire addition. Since your comment said "speculation" I removed the only part that can be considered speculation (i.e., "may have been inadvertent"). The rest is merely factual and does not require any citation, since the film itself is still widely available on DVD and can be easily checked for consistency with what was posted. My addition is relevant to the subject matter of the page, and should not be deleted out of hand by you. If you still have a problem with it, please take it to "discussion" or talk, or contest it through the proper administrative channels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Embram ( talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Embram ( talk) 19:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The Invisible Barnstar | ||
For removing fluff from several articles! CutOffTies ( talk) 17:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
If it sways your opinion any, I e-mailed Nielsen at least twice regarding any archival of the Canadian country and digital charts. They said that there isn't any sort of paid-subscription archive for them. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me Mr. Wolfowitz. I do not know what motivated you to remove all of the content in the article Michael Frost Beckner but it is you who should be removed from this forum. I am the biographer for this living person and have dutifully sourced all of the content. I am not a close associate of Mr. Beckner, but have done a significant amount of research about him and do consider myself an expert in this area. Your actions have degraded the the reputation of yourself and of Wikipedia as a source of useful information. Dwwinter ( talk) 04:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason for this edit is that I cannot verify the Vietnamese claim that Phan Dinh Phung had killed in battle. The thing is the cause of Phan Dinh Phung's death is still a question in Vietnam, most historians tend to not describe clearly why Phan Dinh Phung died and some others used the French's accounts. I found the "Phan Dinh Phung was killed by the French" claim only in some online newspapers and the writers ain't historian at all. I'm Vietnamese and so that please don't accuse me of siding with the French! And you should note that the primary editor of this article, YellowMonkey, is also Vietnamese too.-- 115.75.155.250 ( talk) 16:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It is still a question in Vietnam to me because these online article(s). Give that the French claim has been cited by using an American professor in the body of the article, I will revert your edit once again and will revert it if you do it again. You claim that it is "unreferenced and unsourced" has demonstrated you haven't read the whole article and you reverted my edits because that I'm an anonymous user.
Phan died of dysentery on January 21, 1896, and his captured followers were executed. A report submitted by the de Lanessan to the Minister of Colonies in Paris stated that "the soul of resistance to the protectorate was gone".(Marr, p. 68.)
And the Vietnamese claim has no reliable citation at all. If there is still no consensus, I will report it the WPMILHIST.-- 115.75.155.250 ( talk) 22:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
I think 115.75.155.250 is right :
here (among others), and the author called Phan Dinh Phung a patriot. (I accepted the changes and then saw this talk). Ciao.
Alvar☮
23:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a specialist and won't edit this article any more. Ciao Alvar☮ 23:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Followig my request for help on wpvi: this can help? Alvar☮ 13:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've just made edits to the page in my userspace, so it now looks a bit different than when you saw it. However, while I cannot point out an argument to the article being reasonably deleted before (I still think it's a stretch, but I can't argue it), I do now think being nominated for Rookie of the Year is a valid argument of notability. Would it be better to move the article back and, if someone still disagrees, it go back to deletion discussion? CycloneGU ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny ( talk) 15:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo. Thanks for correcting hatnote to the correct author, but there is no article for the book. According to WP:HATNOTE, "Hatnotes should not be used for articles that do not exist since the notes are intended to point the user to another article they may have intended to find. The exception is if one intends to create the linked article immediately. In that case, consider creating the new article first, before saving the addition of the hatnote". There is an article on the author, but not the book. The same guideline applies to disambiguation pages, so if there is no article on The Other Side of Time, the book, then there should not be either a dab page or a hatnote. I'll revert the change, but this is not an edit war, this is simply following guidelines. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 12:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As an editor at Nicole Kidman affected by the user in question, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Abusive, edit-warring DeadSend4. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
"Isn't there a relevant ArbCom ruling, even if not exactly applicable here, which might serve to alert one or more of the disputants about overly combative editing in this general area?"
Will you please be so kind to explain me what exactly you had in mind when you wrote above mentioned comment?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 21:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out in updating the Hugo Award lists for the 2011 noms! -- Pres N 20:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
You state much more in depth and concisely what took me a long time to puzzle out and word. I'm betting you've used it in the past, and it's worth stealing borrowing for future use, if you don't mind.
Dru of Id (
talk)
12:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, The link ( http://crassunofficial.com/) that I attempted to place in the External links of the Crass page was removed by you on the pretext that it was 'per ELNO, fansite spam'. Please forgive my ignorance in not automatically knowing what 'per ELNO' (Electro-Acoustic and Communication Systems?) is but this page/link is definitely not attributable to what you have deemed as 'fansite spam'.
Given that the page/link contains information and correspondence (as does the link titled 'ANARCHY AND PEACE, LITIGATED (Viceland, Aug 2010) lengthy interview with Penny and Steve, 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' that precedes it) I would have thought that any more references and correspondence referring to 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' would have been a totally relevant addition to the page.
Although not stated in the page/link, I believe it to have been collated by Pete Wright an ex member of Crass, who if you had taken the time to read and investigate the link/page had strong objections (as did four other members of the band) to the reissues that are also the subject of the section titled '2010: The Crassical Collection reissues' that is already on the wiki Crass page. Thus placing this information on the Crass page gives a more balanced account of the 'details of disagreement over re-mastered reissues' within the band.
If you consider this to be a total irrelevance to the history of the band Crass, then I stand corrected by your decision to call this 'fansite spam'. If however after a less rash consideration, you think that my edit has some merit, please reinstate the information in such a way that is consensually acceptable to you, wikipedia and more importantly, the thousands of people who were influenced in no small way by this band.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Yours Sincerely,
Just a note that I have undeleted this article per a request at WP:REFUND. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. What do you think about adding imdb, myspace, playboy profile url and photographer to the Playboy Playmates Infobox, to make those list articles even more direct to the point? I specially don't like the repeated External links section on each list entry. -- Damiens.rf 17:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you were right on Laura Bryna being notable. I sent it to WP:REFUND because I found a bunch of sources on a reliable site called Country Standard Time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 04:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I've made the changes, got rid the NPOV tag and put a new one there. I strongly suggest you don't make the 3RR as that would be a personal attack on my character. I'd also like to point out you've yet to respond to the comments I've made in response to yours. Sleetman ( talk) 05:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
How's so? I mean she did an interview and she said that she is half German and half Norwegian. Norum 17:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Fatwa? What is that? Norum 17:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
One of the playmates afds where you voted keep has been closed as a keep. As I stated on the afd, I'm greatly concerned that most (if not all) information on Jennifer Walcott is sourced either to her playboy profile, her personal homepage or her myspace page. These are unreliable sources for most kind of information.
Since you suggested in the afd that there's enough about her on google news, would you be interested in improving this article?
Within my incompetence, I could only find news articles where she's mentioned trivially in relation to her famous boyfriend.
Please, consider joining me at Talk:Jennifer_Walcott#Trivia_from_unreliable_sources for discussion about cleaning/filling the article. Your expertise is appreciated. -- Damiens.rf 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Your recommendation that the closing administrator take another look was right on the money. I was tempted to complain myself, but didn't want it to look like I had too much invested in the debate. Well done! Cullen328 ( talk) 05:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WU LYF. Robman94 ( talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Using {{ pls}})
Hi, Can you help me deal with this person? He keeps reverting information on Hoda Kotb back to american ethnicity. Norum 07:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
You have not engaged in any such discussion nor provided any reason why the image is a violation. If it is obvious, surely you can explain it. Your reversions amount to edit warring, which does not require a strict violation of WP:3RR. μηδείς ( talk) 03:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You have been directly or indirectly mentioned on this ANI thread. -- Damiens.rf 14:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Erpert
Who is this guy? |
Wanna talk about it? has given you a
dove! Doves promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{ subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Just letting you know there are no hard feelings about this. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, you moved the article to April March (dancer) and then removed the image. Why? You could have easily changed the image rationale... mabdul 08:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, much appreciated. -- 82.41.20.82 ( talk) 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Best & Co. and would sincerely appreciate your participation. I would also appreciate your clarification about whether your objection is to moving the information about a separate, unrelated topic to a separate article, or whether your objection is that the information about the second topic has effectively been deleted (since the separate article I created was deleted). I.e. do you really think the article should cover both, unrelated topics, or do you simply think the content should be preserved in some location and there is currently no better place for it? Thank you. Theoldsparkle ( talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Samir Nasri. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JS Rant Away 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever thought about archiving some of this page? -- PhantomSteve.alt/ talk\ alternative account of Phantomsteve 03:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI: if you preface a link to a page located in a namespace other then the article namespace with a colon, then it'll just show the link. So, for files, to display the link instead of the image/sound/video/whatever, you're put [[:File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg]], which would give
File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg. Sorry for the long winded explanation; I'm getting tired so it's becoming hard for me not to be verbose. ps: archive your talk page, dude! :) Regards,
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs)
16:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making my Cryoburn edits more accurate. Since it looks like you know more about the Locus Awards than I (I don't know much about them at all), I thought I'd ask for elaboration. On the main Vorkosigan Saga page, in the Awards and nominations section, some of the books are listed as Locus nominees (which is what I was patterning my Cryoburn edit after). Is this incorrect? Bujold also referred to Cryoburn's current Locus Award status as being a nominee [92], which is making me even more confused.
Basically, I'm trying to figure out whether the other Vorkosigan award listings need to be changed, or whether the five-finalist thing is close enough to the nominee thing done by other awards that a short format list such as the one in the article could use "nominee" as a shorthand for referring to the Locus finalists. Thanks! Princess Lirin ( talk) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. See my reply, at diff. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I see you replaced the G4 tag. The thing is back at AFD, so why was it improper to remove the G4 tag? An argument could be made that it's "not substantially identical to the deleted version." Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This edit revert was counterproductive. 107.4.30.154 ( talk) 05:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That all happened while I was asleep. By the way, your contributions at Santorum are, in my opinion, the clearest and most insightful. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 05:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your helpful addition of secondary source material to the article Slaves of Sleep. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Ballantine268.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Reverting each other's edits over and over isn't something I would love to do, but the "practice" does show that if artists have their own discography pages, it's enough to only list their studio albums in the pages and use {{ main}} template. Amy Grant released dozens of albums and over 70 singles, yet it's not necessary to list all of them. You can see it by checking discography sections in these articles: WP:FA#Music_biographies. I will be sure to create the List of awards and nominations received by Amy Grant page to reduce the amount of information that consists of lists. And I highly recommend to use explanations in edit summary line to avoid misunderstandings. -- Cannot ( talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed some of the editing history on the page for Regina Russell and the following paragraph is all unsourced: "She also does hosting, and fashion and style segments as a celebrity style expert.[5] [6] She closed her store but continued to raid celebrity closets and auction clothing for charity on various TV shows." I do not see any recent press on the sourced link showing that she currently does hosting and style segments or anything showing she currently "raids celebrity closets and auctions clothing for charity on various TV shows". The last press item is dated August 2007, which means she previously did hosting and segments. User: Pinkmermaid is the subject editing her own page, removing nessesary calls for refs. This is all self sourced and self promotion, without any outside input at all. Your edits were justified and the user reverted them back to her edits once again. Also the Official Website listed takes me to the MySpace page of Regina Russell. Is MySpace considered as someone's official website? It should be referenced as her MySpace page not as an official Website. The page is protected so I can't make any edits. -- Writeitup ( talk) 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I see on the page for Regina Russell that user:Pinkmermaid removed your edit stating she is billed in the movie Hook. According to IMDB her "role" was as "Mermaid" and NOT "Red Headed Mermaid". That "role" is not first billed, it is a 6 second scene that is EXTRA work and not a "billed role" as user:Pinkmermaid is saying it is. This is the entire scene and it isn't even notable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrYYqYfEhPo -- Writeitup ( talk) 18:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know, this person above is the very same person that has been vandalizing my page in the feud you mentioned. The person doesn't even know what "billing" and "first billed" even means. First billing means the ONE actor who is listed first in a films credits. i.e Tom Cruise in Top Gun. No on uses the term "unbilled". The industry standard term is "uncredited" which means the actors name is not listed in the credits. The scene is a minute and a half and what difference does it make? My name is in the credits. I am credited in that and Hollywood Homicide. The user above is just trying to harass and get real editors to do her dirty work. I will source the TV appearances but how does one do so? It's on my IMDB is that good enough. I don't know any other listings of TV appearances. Pinkmermaid ( talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey HW, as you seem to be quite familiar with these accounts, you might be interested in this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage Cheers, Rob. Robman94 ( talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi HW, I need some help/advice... The Chris Webby page was deleted in January 2011 for lack of notability yet now it is in this user's profile... and is not being improved since it's creation on 31 January 2011 (around the original article's deletion). A prior speedy delete tag in Feb 2011 was erased because "he's known by millions" and was apparently not followed up for some reason. It is being linked by Myspace and other social media, so it's being used as an advertisement of sorts. (I googled ""Chris Webby" +Metzfolife", but I can vouch that [94] and [95] work.) There's another copy here too at User:Penn12/Chris_Webby and I'm not really sure what to do about this as it's not the sort of thing I usually deal with. Can you help? Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your change at Kristin Chenoweth. I laughed out loud when I saw your username. I don't know what it means, but it struck me as funny. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
You edited the "Girls By Design" site out from the edit I made. Here is a YouTube link to her being associated with the site: search "Kristin Kreuk and Kendra Voth - ET Canada" on YouTube - she officially posted blogs on her site back in the day and I linked to it when adding her personal life and her saying she didn't eat meat, as well as the fact that the owns a dog named Dublin. It's on the replies section and is confirmed by the company's facebook/twitter pages. If you have any questions, please let me know if you intend on editing the page Marty2Hotty ( talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is the "Girls by Design" part is actually on the wikipedia article and was part of the references. I just put the very same website as the External Links. It cannot be more reliable than the direct source of the biographical figures actual website, which Kristin is still a very much a part of. For this particular biographical figure, she is part of the site, as per the About, and I know people directly involved with her that confirms that as well. She still has her dog and doesn't eat meat anymore. I added additional links (BC Hydro) which are secondary sources confirming she lives in Vancouver and September 2010 picture of that BC Hydro article has her picture with her dog. Update: for Hill Zaini "I heard" music video. I found a link that directs to his Wikipedia page that shows Kristin Kreuk as starring in it. I linked it even though she is prominently in the music video on the YouTube link. That would settle most if not all the edits. Many references added. Please let me know if you have more questions Marty2Hotty ( talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:JBrunnerQS.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Would you reconsider your decline of speedy deletion of Game On (music video). Your comments on declining it indicated that db-web could not be used on a song, however this article is about the music video and is focused on the video's presence on You Tube which makes it appropriate for db-web.-- RadioFan ( talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I see that you and a variety of others keep reverting my edits and are not giving a valid reason. "Defrag, "As before"? These do not tell me anything about what the full on problem is. Why do all of you have a problem with all my edits and don't tell me those reasons that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I really would like to understand this problem and see what we can do to solve it. Write me back as soon as you can. 173.61.170.148 ( talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Dude, cut it out!! Why are you reverting every edit I do?! You are not explaining this problem and I have not even made an attempt to talk to me or explain yourself!! Why do keep reverting my edits, huh? Saying "defrag" does not tell me one thing! I want to settle this issue but you want talk to me!! Since the beginning you have reverted my edits and I have had enough!! Talk to me so we can settle this issue. 173.61.170.148 ( talk) 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot ( talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I thought to bring this to your attention. I tagged the above referenced article as an A10, since removed by you, making an edit summary which states, "remove speedy, appears to be legit spinout". Since the article is an exact copy of the Still Troy article, I would like to invite you to revisit the removal of the A10, in lieu of escalating to another deletion process. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. The desired response would be for you to consider replacing the A10. Personally, I'm thinking you may have been sleepwalking or something when you initially removed it. I kinda got a chuckle out of it. Cind. amuse 13:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep reverting my edit under the information reagrding Surrey Marshe ? Surrely Marshe real name is Solveig Mellomborgen, wich clearly is a Norwegian name. She was misslabelled by Playboy as being from aalborg, Denmark, but was really 100 % Norwegian. She was only a student in Aalborg, Denmark at the time of her discovery by Playboy. The ncorrect nationality of this person is that of one being from the country of Norway. In other worlds Norwegian. Not Danish from Denmark.
I have added a source in Norwegian:
http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/side3/article2981685.ece
This source in Englishwas not blocked by Wiki for some reason:
www.associatedcontent.com/article/245372/playboy_centerfolds_from_the_1960s_pg3.html?cat=38
Please do not revert again
Mortyman ( talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see this edit of mine. Debresser ( talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Labelling something "unencyclopedic" doesn't make it so. Her publicly, and multiply documented and sourced statements are decidedly "encyclopedic." I'm reverting your "agree" deletion as inadequately explained and undiscussed, and out of step with long-standing agreement by many, many other editors. That someone (perhaps) canvassed you for help does nothing to support your position. I won't be silent in the face of deletion of sourced content. Discuss in Talk:Helena Christensen. -- Lexein ( talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Good. I look forward to some attention by independent editors, some of whom might be inclusionists, and some of whom might be deletionists. I look forward to their correction of your misunderstanding of 3RR, and your false characterization of "insert", "all" and inappropriate claim of "dubious noteworthiness." Do stop falsely characterizing my legitimate actions as editor against unjustified deletionism. I've done no "insertions", only reverting repeated deletions, which continued after discussion was begun. Your use of "all" exaggerates the number of editors actually discussing - it's two: you and I. The other seems to have bowed out. My edit history will stand up to any scrutiny you may wish to bring. Cheers. -- Lexein ( talk) 01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
My sister knew her in school in NY. Why did you remove the reference to her real name?!?!? Put it back on the page.
Hi, Hullaballoo. Can you explain to me how the length of the video clip is a relevant criterion, or the fact that it's two years old? Since when are sources deemed invalid for either of these reasons?
Also, can you explain to me how the material constitutes "gossip", given that Benson herself is the one who mentions that she was dating Busch, and did so without any prompting from her interviewers, as it was something she mentioned in passing while answering an unrelated question about her work on Drones? Since Busch directed Drones with her, the fact that she mentions him as "my boyfriend" is rather understandable, and hardly "gossip".
If you are not convinced by my arguments, we can move this discussion to the article talk page, and invite others. Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, with respect to this edit: Actually, I think User:SupremeCommander85 was referring to this. Nonetheless, I agree with your undo. It's worth a mention in the article (and so it is, under "Retirement"), but it's not lede-worthy. Aldrin is not known for this one incident, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it there. I do like your edit summary, though. TJRC ( talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you want to delete everything about sex. That´s so obvious. So your pseudo-talk is just trash. Can you explain how your mother got pregnant, please? Oh she was pollinated by the air...interesting. -- 178.25.2.105 ( talk) 10:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it might be better to wait for a consensus before removing the images. (That is, a third opinion other than Dekkappai's tl;dr filibuster that does little but insult a whole genre with wildly inaccurate stereotypes.) I know you always have the best interests of Wikipedia policy in mind, but I honestly think that at the very least, James Bonamy and Nitty Gritty Dirt Band are exceptions that should be further analyzed by the community first. No two NFCC cases are exactly alike, after all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
"Delete all the country music articles except for Johnny Cash and Burl Ives". Yeah, I was obviously deadly serious there. Anyway, with all the weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and laying-on of wreaths on the grave of another editor's slain ego over my obviously Andy Kaufmanesque rant, one minor thing is being overlooked: It was meant to needle you. I don't even know the other guy ferchrissakes! (He works on country articles? I thought you did.) So why don't you pick out yourself nice little a barnstar and affix my name to it? The "I ducked the coconut cream pie and the guy behind me got it in his face" barnstar or something. Wouldn't it be great if this thing gets me banned? All the BS I've slung at you, and some guy gets his feathers ruffled over an obvious joke that wasn't even directed at him. Yep, that would wrap up my career here in a perfect little bow. Have a nice day. Dekkappai ( talk) 05:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
This is a dynamic IP old man. As soon as you block this IP, I'm jumping to a new one. You'll just screw another user who adopts this IP address at some later point, I have 255^4 possible numbers to use. Good luck winning this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.192.243 ( talk) 01:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm using Huggle and tried to tag Political candidates and elected officials opinions on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for speedy deletion just as it was changed to a redirect. So sorry about the mistake, I was about to undo it, thanks for taking care of it for me. - Vcelloho ( talk) 03:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Klineoa-portrait.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 03:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Why did you edit the Dian Parkinson bio as of 7/15/11 ? You work in a school library and you have time to edit articles,what kind of job do you have? The information was correct idiot! To be honest you seem to me your the type of person I woudnt trust around kids your editing articles on a sex symbol who appeared nude in Playboy and appeared in a Playboy soft porn video during school hours and you have a history of it,why? is it because you have a perverted crush on her like a teenager ?, I cant believe it! Your a frequent contributor to Wiki and your worried about Dian Parkinson's reputation who really are you wierdo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.194.76 ( talk) 16:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey Hullaballoo--will you consider leaving a message on the editor's talk page, explaining why their edits don't pass muster? Some editors don't read edit summaries very often, and it would help if edit-warring and other disruption ensues. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 03:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I realize this is a little ironic to ask, but do you have any objections to me following WP:BOLD and merging unsourced books from the series into the main page? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Courcelles 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you are quite experienced with BLP's. I know you already voted on the AfD for Marcus, but would you mind commenting over at Talk:Marcus Bachmann#BLP concerns and sharing your wisdom? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it's best not to request Revision Delete of content like that in open forums, such as talk pages. I've forwarded the issue along to the oversight team, though I'm not sure it's necessary. Thanks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
While I applaud your perseverance, I am quite saddened by your lack of anything better to do with your life.Please stop vandalizing the Axel Braun page. The awards that you keep deleting are ALL legitimate, documented and very important to the Adult film community, of which obviously you don't know much. Axel Braun is a prominent Adult producer and director, and your constant vandalism is inexplicable.
Hi Hullaballoo!
Nice to see another "Wolfowitz"!
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Hi Hullaballoo,
This is Patrick Reynolds, the anti-smoking advocate and former actor. I wanted to thank you for your kind advice on the Discussion page of my bio at Wikipedia, and to let you know that I have indeed been editing it. I wanted to make it more accurate, add in some little known facts about my life, and correct the few errors in the earlier version there. You're right that I am not skilled at doing things the way Wikipedia likes best; but I will take your advice and stop making edits and adding outside links to the page. My intention was just to make more info available to anyone who may want it. I dont have time to learn how to edit the page in the preferred manner, nor do I have the funds to pay someone to help me do that. I am done making changes now, and hope it will remain pretty much as it is. It seems odd to me that they classify me as an Actor, when I am a former actor. These days I am an advocate, motivational speaker, and author. If you are able to reclassify me under any of those instead of Actor, that would be wonderuful, and make the page more accurate. Further, if there are changes you know how to make to my bio there to help to get it out of the "Stub" Bio class, that would be wonderful. It's really a first class account of my whole life at this point, and some of the links and info in it are not available anywhere else. I'd be pleased to talk to you, if you wish to contact me. Thanks and all the best to you, Patrick Reynolds 2Patrick2 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
Ugh, this COI editor! Would you like to chime in on the recent edits? Mbinebri talk ← 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Freddie_Mercury&diff=441598984&oldid=441412408 ..two editors removed this (you being one and stating it was promotional/approaching the spamline, and another stating the link was unreviewed). It doesn't look in any way notable for inclusion. The person who inserted it created the link, a minor play that contains nothing about Mercury and no Queen material (just some imaginary afterlife). Freddie Mercury impersonators who play at rock concerts looks more notable than this does. MusoForde ( talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for taking those AFDs to ANI. Appreciate the support very much. Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
Let me add my thanks for your prompt and very effective action. It's good to know that somebody has my back. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, 68.167.21.82 has come back to life and it's still acting like a troll/vandal. You even get a name check in this edit. This edit shows the user's true intentions. Robman94 ( talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I've responded to your post at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Redlinking_to_personal_names after the paragraph you wrote became the justification for a tendentious edit war at Western Australian state election, 1933. If you could review the situation I would be most grateful. Orderinchaos 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, they've been well warned IMO. If they readd the information again today (which I suspect they will) report them to AIV for blocking. I'm giving you a heads-up as you're more active than I am these days and are more likely to encounter the change first. Tabercil ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, You edited Some of my comments on Kate Lawlers page a couple of months ago. I wasn't sure why, as they were all factually correct, I left a comment in Discussions, but you haven't noticed. Kate has recetly posted on her kerrang wall that her show is the biggest rated show on Kerrang, I would have edited that in, but I fear you'd just edit it out.
[edit] Lawlers Djing career
kate's clubbing career has been going on for some years now, I thought I would mention it. I didn't really think it was contentious, so didn't add sources. Here are some:
http://www.toolroomrecords.co.uk/artists/kate-lawler http://www.framed-records.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/essentialmix/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20080705 http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/213/31809958.jpg http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/exclusive-interview-kate-lawler-interview-on-radio/fqFtsTolW6WY9hPhhtjP2g
Also her show at Kerrang does start at 15.00 hours nowadays, just check the radio-listings.
Sorry if I'm doing this wrong it's my first attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 ( talk)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (16,032 bytes) (→Reception: It did not. It included it in an apparently comprehensive list of shared-world anthology series that weren't spun off from media/gaming properties) (undo)
Heroes in Hell discussion - If you read the paragraph, it starts off with the most famous SCI FI shared worlds (Star Trek and Dr. Who - suspect since no mention of Star Wars and many other SF SWs), then lists the most famous Horror - Lovecraft Cthulhu Mythos, then lists 14 Fantasy SWs. The next paragraph mentions 1 gaming SW - Dragonlance. The list of 14 is not comprehensive, it is a judgement from a reputable source on famous SW in the Fantasy genre since it is an encyclopedia about FANTASY. I take offense at the insinuation I am a liar - I was merely trying to establish notability by the company the work keeps from a reputable source. I have restated the sentence to re-assert this fact hopefully more to your liking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean to slight your efforts and, in my opinion, extensive research into this matter through my proposals. I just wanted to reach a consensus on this before it got out of hand. Some editors have mentioned that it might be possible to provide the actual contract via scans. Would you be receptive to reconsidering your position depending on what rights were written on there? Honestly, I do not think it is important to explain the difference between first serial and reprint in this case when the differences do not seem substantial. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I've given this some thought. I highly doubt we are going to arrive at a consensus on the discussion page, and I presume the page will be the subject of edit warring in the future between you and other editors. So, I've opened up a dispute resolution page. Maybe there we can clear this up. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Gee, I thought this issue was settled. I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view, the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challenged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview he cited; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy and credibility of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into.
I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 ( talk • contribs)
So I gather Sarah Young was deleted because a similar article was deleted long ago? I thought it was both notable, and sourced, but I guess because of its history here, I need to go through the additional stuff at WP:DRV?
That part aside, I don't think it should redirect to Cloud Cult; there are at least three Sarah Young's more notable than her. Also, shouldn't what links here been checked first? I don't think any of them are related to Cloud Cult. -- Juventas ( talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like you to read the post that Ms Morris just made to my talk page. This is not an invitation to have a dispute with her there; rather, it is an invitation to look at what she says when she does not feel (rightly or otherwise) that she is being persecuted.
Leaving aside her comment about you 'having an agenda', which is a statement I will ask her to retract, I feel that you and she have the common goal of improving Wikipedia's information about the HoH series. As such, you should be able to cooperate. Okay? DS ( talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI It's nice you have so much time on your hands, but please leave wikipedia. We don't need damn fools editing here. Your net contribution is far too negative. The BALLS you have (!) wasting tens, perhaps hundreds of people's time over a minor technical dispute. HAVE YOU NO SHAME??? When in doubt, remember WP:IAR, which far too many editors don't understand! If you're arguing... you're acting wrong. GROW UP. // Fra nkB 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up. I would have missed it if you hadn't mentioned it to me. Cordova829 ( talk) 04:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to give you fair warning that you are teetering very close to violating WP:3RR on Heroes in Hell. I know this discussion is long and plodding, but getting yourself blocked over this publication debacle is not really worth it. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice the similarity between these edits?: [97], [98], and the fact that those statements are tied to yet another IP's contributions? I've opened up an SPI. This is too much. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
On the talk page there's nothing about this version. The sources I used are reliable and the material is encyclopedic (per WP:BLP). You are currently removing sourced material without reason. I think you should see featured articles as Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt to understand that you're doing vandalism (and also an edit war).-- Earthh ( talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Due to the anticipated imminent arrival of Hurricane Irene, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted once this morning (Saturday), and both my area and the area where my ISP operates are expected to be subject to power outages later today, possibly extended outages. So I'm quite likely not to be editing for a while, even after I finish off storm preparations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I've {{ hat}}ted the AN/I thread. I don't see anything else useful coming from it, given that Hulcys appears to be soapboxing. I've also left her a message that her attacks against you are not acceptable, and she will stop making them.
I do, however, want to respond briefly to your comment about the proposed compromise being unacceptable. I'm going to try not to lecture, because that'd be a dick thing to do to someone who knows this as well as I do. There are some things worth being stubborn about here, but this isn't one of them. It's just not a big deal. So, regardless of whether or not you like consensus, which you seem to be the only person against, please just drop it and move on. Regardless, I am going to wash my hands of the content issue. Cheers, and have a great weekend away from Wikipedia, even if it is because of a hurricane. lifebaka ++ 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you survived the storm okay. Whenever you come back, Guarddog2 has posted some extensive comments on her userpage to which I've responded (see User talk: Guarddog2#Clarification as requested by Qwyrxian). I, Jethrobot also commented to me about those points on my talk page (see User talk:Qwyrxian#Guarddog2. It is my opinion that, while her story is not a definitive answer, it is, at least, believable. As such, I don't believe we have enough evidence to firmly block her as a duck of Harmonia1.
Also, as I mentioned in both places, I never actually looked at the pages in question or the DRN associated with HIH. I don't have too much time to do so now, but if there is something specific that you believe I can assist on, I will try to do so. As you'll see, one thing I said to Guarddog2 is that even though I think that there is insufficient connection to the prior Janet Morris case to justify action on that end, the general atmosphere, which may indicate off-wiki collusion, may still be enough of a problem to warrant further action. So let me know if there's something you'd like help monitoring, or discussing, or whatever. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"By longstanding and unmistakeable consensus, IAFD is not an acceptable source for such content in a BLP"
Link? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CanuckMike (
talk •
contribs)
15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for you comment on BLP Notice page. I thoroughly agree with your sentiments. What can we do to improve the celebrity BLP's overall? Are to forums where these types of issues are being discussed. I would like to actively participate. -- BweeB ( talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I am curious as to why you removed some info from Shriya Saran. Is it not proper to talk about the people that the subject is or has dated, especially if they are not married? That is certainly a big part of "personal life", no? Can you point me to some guidelines on what to, and what to not, include? BollyJeff || talk 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback - your contributions to this article have been mentioned in this report. thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You said unsourced. I found it in Teri Weigel's article first and also in Ursula Buchfellner's article including a reference (IMDB).
You also said unimportant. I fail to see how it's less important than being first xxx-born pm or first pm born in the 4/.../90s or first pm w/o pubic hair/with a tattoo. But of course YYMV.
Would it make sense to add her to "Notable Playmates" section like Teri Weigel? After all, Ursula has also done some b-movie work. 79.222.24.179 ( talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Why did you undo my changes to the JWOWW article, specifically citing the source as a problem? She describes the incident in that video and there are multiple episodes of the series where she has had similar bathroom issues. Furthermore, why is it that incontinence "lacks encyclopedic significance"? Is there some new Wikipedia guideline against taboo subject matter? KlappCK ( talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
before undoing edits, please check what you are undoing. do you believe "candice" does not have any surname? what about the information i added to the persondata? that is obviously useful and doesn't require a reference since it's already in the article. guess you thought i was a new user, then please note: not every edit by a new user is vandalism. Durchschnittspornöse ( talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You are currently doing an edit war. One of the rule states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." First, there is no consensus to remove that material; it is sourced by reliable sources and is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. So why remove it? The article needs to be improved, and removing sourced material improves nothing. With your version there are things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). Having been told he supported Obama's candidacy in the 2008 election, what does it add to the reader's understanding that he and his bandmates wore Obama T-shirts at one ceremony? Second, a the peer review there is a consensus to keep that content. Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate, so you have to expose your reasons at the peer review if you don't agree with the consensus. This version represents consensus among editors therefore I will revert one more time.-- Earthh ( talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
What you said here - well, I'm not going to address the topic of fairness to the late Brian Thomsen, but I do think that it is not the wisest choice for "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" to criticize other people for editing Wikipedia under pseudonyms. I politely suggest that you redact or retract that portion of your post. DS ( talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Hullaballoo I do believe that we both want the same thing - the best WP article possible. I truly hope you are willing to tone down the rhetoric and bring this discussion back to a civil discourse. 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 02:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. We need to find common ground. Feelings are being hurt, and egos are being bruised, and it's not good for anyone's blood pressure. Can we agree, at least, that we all want the best possible article on the subject? 96.255.31.106 ( talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
We is you and I. I am the same person - had some IT issues at work, so my IP address must have changed. I believe the statement that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" is factually inaccurate, because, if you look at the copyright data again, you will notice that the Rebels in Hell creation date is 1985, while the IASFM serial creation date is 1986. Also, the first review of the complete work, Rebels in Hell, from which GITO was excerpted, was published four months before the IASFM excerpt was published. So the complete book existed well before the first serial, and was available in advance for review as was the norm back in mid-1980's. 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
HW, you express how frustrated you are at being contradicted by a number of editors. Have you ever thought that maybe all these "really mean" people are also frustrated with you because you are, for whatever reason, insisting on posting inaccurate information on pages that discuss books and stories that mean a great deal to us? I have personally been reading the Heroes in Hell series since it first came out, along with the Thieves' World books and The Sacred Band stories and characters that evolved from TW.
I'm not sure why you are so intransigent about trying to make sure no one thinks Bob Silverberg and Greg Benford actually wrote their Heroes in Hell stories for the series itself, but that is what actually happened.
HW: The above comment is the one YOU made when editing the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. It doesn't require any interpretation - the meaning is obvious. Since you are so devout a believer in sourcing information, would you mind posting the source of the "review" by the "Hugo-nominated reviewer" and the "Hugo-nominated zine" so that others may see what the source actually says and by whom it was said and when? Considering how you parsed the statements by Robert Silverberg when you wrote the imaginative description on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, this review could easily be about Felix the Cat. In 1986, the only "zines" were mimeographed on colored paper and passed out by hand, so I would be very interested in exactly when this review was written. I have offered to provide you scans of the rights pages of all 12 volumes of the original Heroes in Hell series so you can see for yourself that no attribution to any other publication was needed when the volumes were printed, but you appear not to be interested in anything that might refute your interpretation of how the publishing industry defines terms of art; or is it because you know you can't get away with accusing Baen of incompetence or malfeasance in attribution issues in 12 different books? Hulcys930 ( talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Every author agreed to that clause when they signed their contracts to participate in Heroes in Hell -- including Silverberg and Benford -- that all stories submitted to Heroes in Hell would be original works never sold or published elsewhere, written in the shared universe/world of Heroes in Hell, based on the rules of that universe. That is a fairly common expectation/contract term for authors writing in any specific shared universe/world, so why are you so adamant that it did NOT apply to Silverberg and Benford regarding Heroes in Hell?
It is absolutely amazing that of all the editors involved in this dispute YOU are the only one who has any real understanding of the publishing industry and its standards and practices. Did I miss your bibliography? Every time anyone tries to correct your misunderstanding of a publishing term, you immediately and insultingly discount everything they have said and then fall back to your position that reality does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. So, in other words, creating a particular reality in the pages of Wikipedia that applies nowhere else is all that is important to you - regardless of the actual events, contracts controlling a situation, or any other reality involved in the subject matter. You focus on minutia you can attack as not being accurate while baldly stating that accuracy is not important to Wikipedia. Your insistence on manipulating information for your own purposes is one of the reasons why most college students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia as a source for anything they turn in to their professors. That is really a shame because the original concept of Wikipedia is terrific and, unfortunately, very idealistic - they just didn't take into account petty dictators who believe if they argue loud enough and long enough, everyone who disagrees with them eventually will just give up (usually because they have lives) so the dictator wins based on "the last person standing" criteria and the truth is the only real victim. Hulcys930 ( talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
The difference between you and all the "Morris-clique" editors you decry is that you are trying to post incorrect information about the Heroes in Hell series, while others are trying to change the pages back to reflect what actually happened, even though you view the situation from the exact opposite position, when you, in fact, do not really know what happened and seem to be making the mistake of many prosecutors: decide what you believe first and then look for evidence to back up that theory, rather than trying to find out what really happened. I am literally at a loss as to how to resolve this dispute when no matter what anyone tells you and no matter how many ways the situation is explained, you completely discount anything I or any other editors say who disagree with you, and refuse to even consider any information presented that does not back up how you view the situation. I know you realize that you can find any information you wish to somewhere on the web; but just because you can find something three places does not mean it is correct.
I, personally, deeply apologize for any unkind language or accusations I have made against you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and promise never to engage in such language in the future. (Really, I don't practice witchcraft.) It would be good if you could look at information, furnished by the editors whom you feel have been persecuting you, with a fresh eye, without hearing a sneering or condescending tone in what is being said, even though I know you really feel justified in completely dismissing everything said by people whom you consider to be "single purpose editors" -- although I don't really understand why you assume those editors would automatically have nefarious intentions since they are obviously only interested in something about which they feel deeply... I will also see if it is possible to furnish you with some information you would consider truthful. Would a scan of the rights (permissions) page of every Heroes in Hell book help? Maybe there would be a way I could post the jpegs of each page somewhere you could access them. I'd probably have to get permission from an administrator or something, but it still might be possible. Please let me know. Hulcys930 ( talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The above comment was made one week ago and received no response; there also was no change in the "tone" of the editing commentary. I removed the apology since it had obviously done no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC) In looking so hard for "evidence" of "promotional editing" and parsing every single statement made trying to find inconsistencies on which to pounce, you are missing the point entirely: the WP pages need to reflect reality accurately. That is all anyone wants, no matter how hard you try to convince other editors and administrators that every change made to any of the related pages is an attempt to use WP for promotional purposes. It would be really nice if you could just move on and become obsessed with something else. The pages now all reflect a neutral, chronological publishing history, regardless of who suggested it or who agreed or disagreed with the wording. Please leave it the way Lifebaka suggested it be worded.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I wrote the post on Luci Thai and learned that it has been deleted. She is an award nominated pornographic actress, which to me would mean she is notable. AVN is the industry standard for achievement and performance awards and she was nominated for the Best New Starlet award. I don't understand how this doesn't classify her as notable person. Any assistance you can provide, along with what I should have added in addition to my sources in order to keep her page posted on the site would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
After a lengthy conversation with the IP editor (who showed me publishing contracts from the 1980s, which are not for public consumption), I can say that there are three ways to read the situation:
However, that third instance involves terms of art which I believe you may not be interpreting correctly. This is the problem with terms of art: they can sometimes have meanings which are completely counter-intuitive. Can we agree that the third instance is the preferred one? DS ( talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh my! You might want to take that crystal ball back to where you bought it, because it keeps giving you bad information. Neither I, nor any of the other writers in Lawyers in Hell, signed a "work-for-hire" contract with Ms. Morris. I spent several decades working on contracts (Publishing, IP, Mergers and Acquisitions, Collective Bargaining, etc.) with lawyers, so I am very aware of the provisions of any contract I sign on my own behalf. (Yes, I DO know what a work-for-hire contract is and I would not sign one regarding an intellectual property.)
So, where you charge me with making "baseless accusations", are you now saying you are NOT attempting to prove Mr. Silverberg wrote GITO independently of the Heroes in Hell series, then sold it to Ms. Morris later, and that it just happened to be printed in Asimov's shortly before the anthology was released? I thought that was one of your main contentions regarding these articles. I could have sworn you said:
I'm pretty sure that in the above statements, you insist Mr. Silverberg did not write GITO for Heroes in Hell because he had used Gilgamesh as a character in a prior novel (I guess the other two stories don't matter because they did not win Hugos) and that the appearance of his stories in the Heroes in Hell series constitute "reprints" which to most readers means "this story was written for publication elsewhere and later the author was paid by [this publication] to "reprint" their story and it was not changed substantially to fit in with the rest of the [publication]." However, Mr. Silverberg himself said the following:
Now, HW, to me this sounds like Mr. Silverberg is saying
This is from the same source you used to "prove" the exact opposite of what Mr. Silverberg says. So, no, I'm not engaging in the "persistent invention of baseless accusations" in this matter. I will be very interested to see how you attempt to overturn the information in your favorite source that contradicts completely your theory of how GITO came about and its relation to the Heroes in Hell series. Hulcys930 ( talk) 07:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I put this on the Heroes in Hell (book) page and post it here in the hopes that this will add to the distinction between "originally published" and "first serial." My comments follow: By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mr. Ollie have done [2]on the Heroes in Hell series article, the Heroes in Hell anthology article, and Robert Silverberg's "Giglamesh in the Outback" articles, HW and Mr Ollie repeat the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and b) confuses a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." [3], p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form, or when a magazine is the acquiring publisher. However, to use it to refer to a first serial of part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a first-serial publication, in my opinion using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book. It can be inferred that a publication that appears first in partial form and later in a book by the acquiring publisher is a first-serial right. As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance. The colloquial use of "original publication" may not always be precise or accurate. Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz and Mr Ollie in the latest revision of the Heroes in Hell anthology, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and as a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which I mine opinion is not verifiable at all. Dokzap ( talk) 20:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap
I'm curious to know as why a credible claim to importance is relevant in this case given that my nomination was based on criterion G4. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Jared Leto". Thank you.-- Earthh ( talk) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
It has been suggested that this document may provide illumination on certain parts of the dispute. DS ( talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Two points: 1) Janet Morris did not endorse the use of the "originally published" language - she endorsed I, Jethrobot's proposed non-controversial consensus wording where it was merely stated that GITO was published in both venues, without any attribution to originality;
The following is from Janet Morris refuting you calling me a liar:
I've collapsed a wall of text, crossposted from Guarddog2/Janet Morris's
talk page, where anyone who wants to can read it. All that it actually says about the text I cited amounts to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (
talk)
02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
I endorse WP presenting only the actual facts about the Heroes in Hell(TM) series, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's consistent misunderstanding and misstatements of the factsI was hoping never to return to this debate, however, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is now claiming I endorse positions and editions based on his positions, which are incorrect. I do not accept any statement that any story for the HIH series was "originally published" anywhere else because this is untrue and contrary to the contract between me and every writer in the series. Here are the facts about Heroes in Hell(TM), its various volumes and stories printed elsewhere which must be correctly stated. I am aware that WP has a BLP ongoing. I prefer not to participate in any more endless debates, but to say here for the record that my rights and the rights of approximately 34 writers are being misstated by HW and potentially damaged when "originally published" is used to indicate that a story from Heroes in Hell had a first serial or promotional inclusion elsewhere. Heroes in Hell is a shared universe series, which means certain intellectual property belongs to the series and to me as its proprietary/editor, such as milieu and characters created for the series. The contract under which the books were written for me and my contract with Baen Books for the 20th century volumes of HIH stipulates that all stories commissioned by me and guided by me and created for my series by ALL authors are to be original and written to take place in and include the Heroes in Hell series milieu and concept, which is my intellectual property, created by me and subsequently contributed to by the various writers in full understanding of their contract terms and conditions. For this reason, the Baen Books volumes cite no permissions and no earlier publications on the copyrights pages and each clearly states that each book is a "Baen Books Original." This is legal and correct in terms that Simon & Schuster accepts and the US Copyright Law accepts because THE STORIES ARE CREATED FOR AND ORIGINAL TO the HIH series. The placement of first serials or free promotional placement (as in the case of the story Baslieus, which I co-wrote) in magazines or other books in no way clouds or diminishes the fact that each story was commissioned by me and created under my direction as an original story for my shared universe series, or that every author signed the same contract, each author warranting that the story I commissioned and which each author delivered would be an original story. Nor does such promotional publication diminish the requirement that the Heroes in Hell characters and milieu created by me and others belongs to the series as a whole. The Library of Congress "original" copyright date for each volume (listed under the volume and my name and thereafter including the names of the other writers) is as much as a year before the publication date. For Rebels in Hell this copyright office date is 1985. Any attempt to prove primacy based on dates of availability is immaterial and doomed to fail because of the lag time between original copyright date and publication. By US contract law and publishing law, all stories written for HIH series were required to be original to the series and one look at the volumes' rights pages proves this by the lack of permissions citations required thereon. Any "editor" should know this, whether a Wikipedia editor or any other kind of editor. If you apply the standards HW is attempting to apply to establishing GITO's "original" publication (a nonstandard term and an immaterial term in any case), every other book and story in WP should be immediately subject to the same extensive scrutiny and potential revision of their WP pages. Since in the mid-1980s it was common for portions of as-yet unpublished books to be included in other books or magazines with earlier publication dates (even including other books by other authors) in order to promote upcoming book releases, and this was often done by verbal agreement, thousands of titles would have to be re-investigated if WP wants to prove "original" publication status for each and every case. On the WP page about Gilgamesh in the Outback (GITO), which exists because the story is Nebula Award nominated and Hugo Award winning, focus should be maintained on the version that won the award, which was the version created under my direction for Rebels in Hell and submitted to me as original and purchased by me as original, and also first-serialized in IASFM. If any Silverberg quotations are added, they should be those that explain that in order to compile his 3 HIH stories into a volume to be sold by him outside the series, he was obligated to remove the proprietary HIH material to avoid copyright violation issues. Since by doing so, the GITO story in Silverberg's resulting novel was no longer the award-winning version, discussing this novelized version of GITO on a page dedicated to the award-winning version at all is discursive. I suggest, since all problems have solutions, that a simpler and less controversial wording be adopted, or correct publishing terminology be used. Perhaps it could be said that story X was published in magazine X AND book x, and avoid the issue of applying non-standard publishing language altogether. The sequentiality issue is the problematic one. Or use correct publishing terminology, such as "Published in X book on A date and first-serialized in Y magazine on B date. In closing: I endorse none of HW's edits or statements or selective quotations on the topic of Heroes in Hell series and its stories, which statements and edits are at best confused and at worst misleading. Guarddog2 ( talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC) 98.218.161.68 ( talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC) |
and 2) I am sure you can find 10,000 examples of where a story was created and sold first to a venue such as Asimov's, and was there "published originally". But I am equally sure you could probably find 2,000 examples for every 10,000, where that is not the case, i.e. where the story was created for another publisher to be included in a book or anthology and sold as a subsidiary right, to be published in a venue like Asimov's under the first serial definition provided in the SFWA documment. For example, if Tom Clancy sells his new book, "The Sum of All Nightmares" to Putnam, and then the New York Times publishes a first serial full chapter excerpt two weeks prior to book release, by your definition, the New York Times is the "original publisher", since the excerpt came chronologically first. Only the contracts between author and publisher can provide verifiability beyond a shadow of a doubt in these cases, where the bibliographic evidence is incomplete.
In this case, we have provided DS with the exact contract language that ALL the original 19 Heroes in Hell franchise authors signed. GITO was commissioned to be written within a specific milieu i.e. the Heroes in Hell shared universe per the franchise agreement for the book "Rebels in Hell", and not as a standalone work. Only BAEN Books has the right to claim that it is the original publisher. They bought the primary rights under an advance and royalty contract. First serial rights are addressed in that contract (per the provided definition - publication "prior to" book release). GITO in this instance is an excerpt from the book. It is a chapter of the anthology to be taken as a part of the whole. Were this not the case, then how do you explain this statement in the Heroes in Hell contract which every author signed: "The author represents that the story is original and has never been published in any form." If that is not the case, as you are claiming, then you are in fact accusing Silverberg, Benford, and all the other authors who exercised their first serial rights as delineated in the Heroes in Hell contract of fraud, since by your definition they created the works "originally" for Asimov's or any other magazine used to advertise the upcoming book and lied when they signed their Heroes in Hell contracts. Look at the creation dates in the copyright information. Rebels in Hell was created in 1985. The Asimov's Magazine issue with the book excerpt was created in 1986. So the book pre-exists the magazine article. Chronological availability of a product to purchase is meaningless in this instance. You can see why so many respected authors are upset with your insistence on using general language bibliographic definitions instead of defining specific terms of art used in the publishing industry for the WP readership. I am sure you were just trying to write the best possible article with the information you had available to you, but please correct these oversights now that you have verification of the actual contract terms. I know you have stated in the past that the WP readership would not understand these terms of art, and that is why you are so adamant against using them, but I'm sure a well written article commissioned to explain them simply, could enlighten and educate all of us. WP is an encyclopedia after all. 96.255.31.106 ( talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one thinking that these two accounts at the Noel Ashman bio are the same person? Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noel Ashman 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/Noel Ashman 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. I've provided this courtesy notification as one of the significant contributors to the article. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 23:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You removed all of the references from this article and then tagged it as unreferenced. I've added some references back to the article. In the future, please don't delete references from reliable sources. Pburka ( talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you let me know your thinking for deleting the references to the charities Kelly Hu has worked for? The links to the actual charities and other references are included. In the comment you said they were promotional - did you object to promoting the charities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgrudd ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi I am still new to Wiki and have been activley participating in doing Wiki updates and adding new articles, I would like some guidance on an article that I wrote that had a significant amount of references as well the individual was a part of something Significant in Military History. It was deleted repeatedly and I saw the notes I changed it made edits then the same administrator submitted it for deletion again and said the person is not notable..please help with this? this is in regard to an article marked Kimberly J. Bowles that was deleted today. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpreneurgoddess ( talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Re your edit here. The statement is a verified fact, the usage of 'gossip' at the BLP policy page states:
The information is verifiable/true/reliable (confirmed by other party) and in my opinion a star's social and personal life is indeed relevant to the depth of their media coverage. When I randomly thought of and looked at some other actors' articles - ( Hugh Jackman, Kristen Stewart, Emma Watson, Scarlett Johansson, Julia Roberts) - they all have extensive personal life sections which usually detail their romances and/or marriages. One man's gossip is another man's news...perhaps interested editors could weigh in on Talk:Emma Roberts with their thoughts? Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I would like to request your opinion if the tags on the article are appropriate within the guidelines of an article appearing here. I have a lot of changes I have been working on with Microsoft Word, but this page feels like a internet fan page and not an encyclopedic article. Also I am requesting a response on my page as your talk page is full of 500 plus entries which freezes my internet browser. Thank you for understanding. And please consider archiving your talk page if it has not already been discussed help from other parties on Wikipedia is out there, just ask and they will help you archive your page for you. JasonHockeyGuy ( talk) 02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to know what "violation" you are talking about when deleting the picture I uploaded. In fact, the self-portrait drawn by Ditko is a non-free image, and I have uploaded other non-free images (under a fair rationale use) to other artists infoboxes and never had a problem with any editor or administrators. I think we should resolve our dispute here, because I'm sure that the photo uploaded does not infringe any terms of use in Wikipedia, but if you think I'm wrong, feel free to let me know your reasons. Thanks. Fma12 ( talk) 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Curious, what did you mean by "Kardashian mold" at the AFD for the community college professor? None of the names at Kardashian seem to me to make sense, and I strongly suspect that you're not referring to Kardash. Please either reply at my talk or leave a talkback. Nyttend ( talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Shilpa Shetty, you may be blocked from editing. Remember, if you disagree about the inclusion of sourced content for any other reason, use the talk page and discuss its redundancy. Shahid • Talk2me 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well Times of India generally is regarded as one of the more reputable Indian sources. I agree that the mafia coverage was excessive but I think it is worthy of mentioning briefly. For me atleast if an issue has been widely covered in reliable sources then that makes it worthy of inclusion, otherwise its seems like censorship. Personally I think the BLP issue at times can be overexaggerated because if claims are supported with multiple sources then we can't really be to blame for it. You have a point though about excess tabloid fodder, but in this case I wouldn't exactly call it that. I mean I see a lot of real crap in articles about some celebrities dog and some people think its notable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You're really beginning to piss me off with your ridiculous BLP "gossip" "tabloid" claims. Personal life and dating somebody for 4 years for instance is perfectly relevant. Especially when they are referenced to reliable sources. Why don't you do something useful for a change? Its damaging actually what you are doing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This time the case has gone in your favour, as I myself actually don't see the neccessity of the mafia section and have no intentions of protecting it. Having said that, your conduct has been continuously disruptive on Wikipedia. You always remove sourced info, which is often essential. You will have to learn to use the talk page when necessary. I see you have once been blocked already for disruptive editing. Next time I see something as inappropriate as I've seen so far, your case will be taken to WP:Arbitration, where a full report of your history and conduct will be filed. Thank you. Shahid • Talk2me 09:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hey! Did you actually find the article on another Wiki or did you base your argument on the concept of notability via other Wikis? I can't find it anywhere but I'm assuming it's on Russian Wikipedia and the different alphabet is just throwing me off the scent. OlYeller21 Talktome 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain how the line "biggest hoax of recent times" an exaggeration of cited source? Please note that the line has been taken from the source itself with no exaggeration/addition/modification done by me. Boolyme बूलीमी Chat बोलो!! 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
My edits, stating the model’s real name Stephanie Schick were undone with comment “unsourced at best…”. The real name, however, is true fact and can be found, for instance, on the IMDB or is stated on other language WP, see Pandora Peaks. What is required to validate my edits? — Pendethan ( talk) 13:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is funny that someone like this has a Wikipedia article. Just wanted to add my 2 cents! :) - Marty2Hotty ( talk) 17:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I was taken by surprise about your removal of the information about his relationship with Jana Julie Kilka from the "Personal life" section, labeling it as "outdated gossip" and saying that it didn't have significance.
What criterion should we use for including something under "Personal life"? Because I think a personal relationship is way more relevant that his childhood pets (something that you kept on your edition), and I think the sources were better than the youtube videos used as sources for the pet facts.
And well, being an actor, and being about who he is dating, it seems logical that most, if not all, the sources that refer to this are gonna be tabloids. What kind of sources should we use for it not to be qualifiable as gossip?
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, you have been helpful in the past. I have a question and worked on creating the Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy article. It's a film but I'm not quite sure how to upload a low resolution photo. The photo is available on the movie's Facebook page and I reduced the quality significantly: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4289/ecstasy7.jpg - I would like to have this as the poster on the page. I went to Partition (2007 film)'s picture page and it shows that pictures that are low resolution for movies can be added on. I was wondering if you can upload it and attach it on the page. Thanks again for your help. - Marty2Hotty ( talk) 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was able to upload the photo through the help pages. I used a poster, which I read, meets the Wikipedia guidelines for "non-free" - commercial posters or something to that extent. Learning something new everyday! - Marty2Hotty ( talk) 06:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
To: Hullabalooo Wolfowitz
Re: Victoria Principal
I was surprised that you edited out all information about Victoria Principal's marriage to Harry Glassman. On her Wiki page, all it states is that she remarried in 1985 and divorced in 2006.
I don't know why she [or you] for that matter are trying to downplay the fact that she was married to one of Beverly Hill's most noted plastic surgeons but you deleted that.
As for his arrest for domestic violence, see the following links:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0066117/
http://tv.yahoo.com/victoria-principal/contributor/840865/bio
I included in my edit that charges were never filed by her and that she vehemently denied any allegations of spousal abuse. I didn't even include the fact that she was admitted to Cedars-Sinai after his arrest.
I also have the Redbook Magazine wherein she states that she and Glassman decided not to have children as it would mar her body contradicted by her statements in a Lifetime Intimate Portrait where she says that she was unable to have children -- both of which were duly referenced in my edit.
You wrote in undoing these edits: lacks references required for content of this sort in living person's biography; Undid revision 457429063 by Lisa kristin1 (talk)) (undo)
Why undo edits that were perfectly valid and you could have checked out for yourself? I didn't write one thing that was not true about Ms. Principal and you had no business removing it.
lisakristin1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa kristin1 ( talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Due to the imminent arrival of the wast coast snowstorm, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted several times this afternoon (Saturday), and both my area and the area where my ISP operates are expected to be subject to power outages later today, possibly extended outages. So I'm quite likely not to be editing for a while, even after we clear out the fallen trees, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
WikiMedal for Janitorial Services | ||
I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services for continually cleaning out the nonsense clogging the gutters. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
Also, on an unrelated note, I would kindly propose that you might want to do some archiving of your talk page. Cheers again! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have noticed you deleted the page on Rhonda Rydell. Beside having not being informed (according to normal procedure in Wiki) of the deletion, I was not able to take part to the discussion. IMHO motivation appears somehow arguable: despite having only 2 movies and few appearance I recall (and it is in my user page) Jimbo's idea of wikipedia: free access to information, and I might agree that my article on Albiruni or on other economic topics are much more interesting and "encyclopedic". again IMHO the motivations adduced apprear not to be solid ground as principle for deletion. What I mean is that I have found other 30+ wiki-pages of biographies with less than Rhonda Rydell's content and references. As I did not have been informed in the deletion procedure, can I ask you to review your decision according to [Wikipedia:DRV] wiki deletion review procedure? She has over 1.4 million pages linking to her, despite she retired in 1998, she has an interesting story behind. She is not famous for the Confidence Man (very few know about this) , but she was well know before. Cheers The Lone Ranger Hit me with a good one! 12:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I had previously declined a G4 speedy. Obviously we disagree over whether it has been changed enough. I said in the edit summary I would send it to AfD, but I think it would be singularly awkward for I will probably want to support keeping on the basis of the club ownership. Perhaps you should do the AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
This article is a completely an advert and "unsalvageably promotional". The proof of it is another article made in sep 2011 which was speedily deleted by Fastily under G11-- Habib Construction Services Pvt. Ltd..The same article has been copy pasted and used here with minor changes. See] this for the page on 20 sep 2011. Moreover it has a lack of notability because it finds no mention in news articles, see this.Do pardon my audacity. Vivekananda De --tAlK 03:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
==
Sockpuppetry case==
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a
sockpuppetry case. Please refer to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Erpert
Who is this guy? |
Wanna talk about it?
03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop deleting perfectly legitimate edits I have made on the FDA and IBTS pages. Everything I have posted is referenced and is certainly not "axe grinding" as you dismissively claim. The ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood in these countries is a matter of great controversy and the agencies concerned have been heavily criticised for following such policies. It's only right then that this should be recorded on the pages concerned, and just because you may approve of the bans or believe they should not be controversial does not alter this reality. I believe you are being deliberately disruptive, having twice deleted my edits. PinkPolitico80 ( talk) 03:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC) PinkPolitico80
Hi , we you please give some feedback at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amy Daly - thanks - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Only warning. Cease defending anti-Semites, or you will be punished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needback2 ( talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just a short note from a totally uninvolved editor (I'm not voting here and have no history with either the candidate or with you). I think you've gone over the borderline of civil/uncivil; I appreciate the points you're trying to make, but the language in which you're making them is too strongly confrontational. Maybe you had a particularly bad day, but perhaps an apology for some of your word / phrase choices might be in order. Things like "That's some of the most shameless and awful wikilawyering I've ever seen", and "One was so plainly a porn source that the most blithering of idiots could not have mistaken it." It's going too far to say that an editor is worse than "the most blithering of idiots". I'm sure a couple of words of apology would be in order. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, will expand my efforts to include the more mundane areas, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. We may cross paths at AFD discussions in the future... sometimes in agreement about a keep or a delete, and sometimes not... but as it is inappropriate, I will never use the mop to close any where we both have commented, I will respect consensus, and I will avoid closing any if consensus one way or t'other is not quite clear. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The cornerstone of Ankit Fadia's career was that at age 16 the U.S. Government asked him to decrypt a steganographic message from Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, no one has collaborated this statement, the branch of the U.S. Government that does code cracking is the National Security Agency, they are the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and they are one of the largest consumers of electricity in Maryland, likely to run their acres of code cracking supercomputers, they don't need to call 16 year old foreign national to break messages from Al Qaeda.
There has been no confirmation that Al Qaeda has used steganography as that would confirm sources and techniques of intelligence gathering, the only reporter that wrote something about Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and steganography was Jack Kelley of USA Today who was let go for fictionalizing his stories. Now when you take the story from MiD Day, which was in both their print and online editions, and posted on Ankit Fadia's website, Fadia mentions that "The agencies had tracked some emails where few people were frequently exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne They had used technography to send messages." While MiD Day likely transcribed technography as Steganography this would have been impossible in the days or even months after the 9/11 attacks as Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002.
There is no computer security technology called technography but steganography which allows users to hide messages in pictures, video and sound files. News reports that Fadia has been quoted in over the years have him deciphering this message from Osama bin Laden's men in the months after 9/11, a few source this as happening in November 2001, and now he's saying that these groups were exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne in November 2001 when Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002. I am not going to say this whole story is a lie, but given that he's repeated this story over and over again, adding new things here, how does this not qualify as biographical information when its published online and the dates don't mesh.
From his own website - http://www.ankitfadia.in/who_is_ankit_fadia.html - In November 2001, Fadia was consulted by a classified intelligence agency for breaking an encrypted message sent by one of Osama Bin Laden's men.
Cracking the Code - http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/youth/article49478.ece?homepage=true - after the September 11 attacks, the U.S Government found some encrypted mails. The mails apparently had only pictures and no text accompanying them. “The pictures followed the steganography pattern where in photographs with embedded messages are used. I gave a few suggestions on decoding them. It was exciting as I was only 16 then. They usually never give any feedback as it is classified information but since I received a few projects even after that I feel I have been of use at some level,” smiles the 24-year-old.
Don't you find it the least bit odd about Fadia mentioning Avril Lavigne pictures in this story? Doesn't this qualify in the same league as having the second best hacking site by the FBI when there has never been any list to that effect?
Please reconsider the undid with this information.
Thanks!
Shawn Fynn ( talk) 09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Instead of repeatedly removing long standing and cited content, could please explain your actions on the talk page. You may have a point, but declaring something as "not legitimate" really doesn't explain anything and sounds like just an opinion. Regardless of whether it was a 'legitimate' award, or not, it would seem to me that Stonewall's response to Moyles in regard to the events being discussed are notable and relevant. Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the "attack" award from the appropriate BLP articles. Wasn't there something similar to this at the Sean Hannity BLP page about adding misinformer of the year award to his bio? I fully support your efforts and applaud your fairness. -- 68.9.119.69 ( talk) 03:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Please take a second look at this discussion. Some additional avenues of resolution have been proposed, but the discussion is currently at a loggerhead. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 04:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Do not remove material under a misleading edit summary. You know well that the BLPN agreed that content could be decided on an article by article basis and certainly not removed across all articles as you claim. Discuss it on the talk page and if you use misleading edit summaries again I will ask for your behaviour to be examined. Your action on the Iris Robinson article does you no credit. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Leaky Caldron 00:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this edit. You know very well that no consensus has been reached for the removal of this, both on this article and in BLPN generally. Despite being urged to, you have also declined to join the discussion regarding it on the article talk page. Your continued insistence on removing, against consensus, is therefore disruptive and your edit summaries are at best deliberately misleading. Consensus is against you on this matter. I ask you to accept this rather than continued edit warring. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Just as a note, I reinstated mention of the "award" simply because I found that it was also reported in the Guardian. I don't understand what the controversy is. The paragraph talks about Stonewall and their criticism toward Moyles and it's unfit to also mention they gave him a mock award when it's reported by reliable sources? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Please stop. I don't like requesting blocks on genuine editors, but your behaviour is disruptive.
People have been very patient with you. Edit Chris Moyles once more in this manner without consensus and I will request you are blocked. For everyone's benefit, please, accept that consensus is against you on this one and move on. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a neutral notice of an RfC for a page on which you have been an editor. If you wish to participate, the discussion is taking place here. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 04:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot ( talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. A user has contested the deletion of Veronika Zemanová on my talk page. Since you nominated the page for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Regards, FASTILY (TALK) 10:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you removed some pics from Colton Ford with the above edit summary. I couldn't care less whether they are there or not, but was curious as to why use would be justified on a standalone page but not as part of merged discography. (Those images got there because articles on the individuals were merged away.) -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
While I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person this article meets a criteria of WP:NF... and that it does have coverage... I agree that its current tone is problematic. And while often adressable, I ask that you take a look at this edit and understand that I agreee that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Hulla. I appreciate very much you fighting the tabloid-ery there. On a separate subject, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Demi Moore about her parents' birth certificate, and I hope you'll join. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
TransporterMan ( TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Why did you remove File:Mike branson.jpg? I know he is still a living person, but he has been inactive since 1998 or 1999. Per WP:NFC#UUI, he retired from porno business. -- George Ho ( talk) 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Should I contest the "speedy" tag that you put? I have added "non-free fair use in" tag. Why was this tagged? -- George Ho ( talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that it is fowled up, and not to be rude, but it doesn't really help the predicament.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 01:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz regards and love
You are a senior than me in Wikipedia but You also have certain limitations and I am sorry to say that yopu are not and Indian so You don't even Indian celebs . Its a major fact of her Biography and changes are really very sad because you are barring useful information to the page viewers of page Sanaya_Irani .
We know the small to small details about her ( Sanaya_Irani) and I had given the informations according to unbiased and resourceful materials. I am again edting the page and please do reply me in this and please do understand to which country you velongs i can't edit that country's celebrity page and as i do not know i didn't seen her work
so please understand the aspects of the page and i will provide all references to the indian cites of Sanaya_Irani.
again respect to you and your contributions
Saurabh kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhkr wiki ( talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because I overturned your wrong and unhelpful tag bomb at Chelsea Charms doesn't mean you should try to gut every edit I ever made. That's a little crazy, and you should just stop now. NewExLionTamer ( talk) 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Just examining your edits tells me a great deal. Most of your "removal of trivia" is reverted by other editors. The fact that this is so would indicate few people agree with your extreme views on personal life information. You have a point about tabloid fodder about one night stands, flings etc but long term relationships which are widely covered in rleiable sources like BBC etc are most certainly encyclopedic and meet guidelines. In fact some relationships are so well known that it would be censorship to not even mention them. If you continue to operate in this way I will consider opening an investigation and RFC investigating your disruption. There's clearly a difference between removing unsourced tabloid fodder and removing any mention of personal relationships which is sourced like you do. Wikipedia is not censored, but your views are so extreme that you even harsher than a typical censor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Your views are extreme, orthodox and trolling. Have to agree with many of the above commentators. Stop trolling. Continue to overturn what you think is wrong is not really an intelligent way to operate any encyclopedic community, such as wikipedia. Seeing from history,you have a history of being blocked and called out. You make the Wikipedia community unpleasant and encourage fighting.
Your recent editing history at Linda Ronstadt shows that you have a history of editing and removing content with any discussion. I am not claiming the images "free content". Instead of reverting and editing work you should have and please consider using the article's talk pagebefore removing other people's work under your claim of removal of copyright violations. All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. If you would have taken the time to click on the photos itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007 Sharkentile ( talk) 8:49, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)
All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. CLICK ON THE PHOTOS itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007. That is FACT. Sharkentile ( talk) 9:19, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tristessa
(talk)
18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)I have closed the AN/I thread regarding your NFCC dispute, having blocked you both for 24 hours for having violated the three-revert rule. Please read my closing comments. I hope you will resolve this dispute through discussion rather than repeated reversion in future. After your block expires, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help to settle this between you. -- Tristessa (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Pro forma request. While Tristessa has unblocked, per the discussion above, an autoblock still remains in effect. With the autobloack functioning, I can't post to Tristesse's talk page. I'd prefer not to use the autoblock-specific template here due to a rather odd event that occurred after my IP address was posted publicly. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Autoblock cleared. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. It is possible to save the page "Nikolai Kurbatov"? In addition to links to livejournal, there is reference to kinopoisk.ru, rusarticles.com, pstu.ru, imdb.com, facebook.com, kinoafisha.net, infomaniya.ru ... Thanks, N-k90 ( talk) 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited Dancing Tonight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inside Out ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Please self revert in article Yoko Ono. The removal was explained and is further explained on the talk page. 174.255.112.150 ( talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at with these. Why does copyright owned by Getty Images matter? The whole point of non-free images is that permission of the copyright holder is irrelevant and unneeded. Thus saying "expressly identified as Getty Images photo" is a pointless non-rationale. If being a Getty images photo disqualifies a picture from fair use, I wouldn't have uploaded it, since as noted I did in fact "expressly identify" the copyright holder, as image uploaders should always do. Can you explain your rationale here? SnowFire ( talk) 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I looked more closely at criteria F7 which you linked to. The Dominque Strauss-Kahn image you speedy'd does in fact have "critical commentary" on the image, but it seems like my dispute is with that part of the non-free content criteria, not you. I find it utterly bizarre that Wikipedia should treat images from Getty differently from copyrighted images from an independent photographer. (And edit conflict, yeah, you posted the same thing. I still disagree but I understand your rationale at least now. Is there any explanation *why* listed anywhere?) SnowFire ( talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I have posted the sourced commentary on the image itself at the file talk page, with appropriate emphasis, in case you were unable to locate it in the article. Since it is the subject of sourced commentary, at least in Perp walk, I respectfully request you either withdraw your speedy nom entirely as it is clearly invalid, or open another FfD if you believe it is because it is pretty obvious there would be a difference of opinion, as there has been on two previous occasions. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Daniel Case ( talk) 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
This user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz completely trolled this article Choky Ice Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!( talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey08 ( talk • contribs)
You obviously have something against this actor CUT THE CRAP, all is well sourced especially the part where it says "career" It states the date, the name of the site etc.. I REPORTED YOU FOR VANDALISM! STOP TROLLING!!!-- LowKey08 ( talk) 03:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)