I was reviewing album articles and found four album covers on Giant Killers (EP). Just wanted to draw your attention to this page. Mburrell ( talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This is fine, I suppose, but may I make a suggestion, since you appear to take it upon yourself to hunt down unfree imagery: In cases where, as you yourself argue, the image is "replaceable by text", why not provide this text at the time you remove the image? Or at the very least transfer the image caption into the article prose instead of simply blanking it alongside the image? I am asking because sometimes I invest considerable effort into researching the origin and content of images, and cite them, with literature etc., in the image description. If the image is deleted for some reason, this research is also lost from view.
In short, when deleting images, for good reason im most cases I am sure, please make sure that no encyclopedic information is lost by the blanking of the image description page. -- dab (𒁳) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Back when Margo Feiden wasn't yet an article, you remarked on the AfC that
If you could dig up that reference or point me in the right direction I would appreciate eversomuch. Also, I seem to remember at least one reviewer said that the cast was made up of High School for the Performing Arts students?...if you have any idea where I could find a ref for that statement that would be *awesome*. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The article title, "Teen-Age Troupe Trying 'Peter Pan' For Off Broadway", pretty much says almost all we need to know; the article also reports that the cost of staging the production would be $600 -- which, even in 1961, couldn't possibly stage a professional production in Manhattan. But, hey, if you read the court decisions in the fights between Feiden and Al Hirschfeld/the Hirschfeld estate, you'd see that her reputation for veracity . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I see you have removed images of TV show cast from Empty Nest and EastEnders. Is WP:NFCC#8 sufficient enough? If so, how would readers expect open content to help people understand the TV series? Can readers understand info about cast and characters? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I see from the state of your talk page that you are a seasoned and controversial editor here. I don't have a big issue with your edit removing the image, but I'm interested in the explanation about the fair use rationale being 'invalid'. Surely it serves a purpose for showing the distinctive visual branding and range of products they typically carry? Cheers daylon124 ( talk)
Regarding this, I do not see that it applies in this case. The kiss is the main reason this couple is WP:Notable. It's not about "oh, readers can imagine them kissing." It's about the fact that this particular moment is groundbreaking/historical and the image is displaying that particular moment. While they have kissed other times on the series, it is this kiss that received all of the media attention. We are allowed to include a non-free image when the imagery itself is the discussion or when the imagery validly aids the topic of discussion. And, no, I do not believe that what you did in this case -- making the image the lead image -- is the solution. This is per what I stated with this edit. Furthermore, whether or not to keep this image was discussed before; see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg. The consensus was to keep the image. I suggest you put it up for another WP:Files for discussion if you want it deleted. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not make a nonconstructive removal of sourced claim to the above article. I made a minor grammar edit (removing an unnecessary comma). Regards Denisarona ( talk) 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted your edits on Gia Darling, Francesca Le, Cash Markman, Tim Von Swine, Tiffany Clark and Deidre Holland, Please use Afd to gain a consensus, not just arbitrarily delete based on your personal viewpoint. -- John B123 ( talk) 16:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- John B123 ( talk) 06:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
I recently uploaded few pics from Flickr to Commons. Majority of images are those of copyrights: Attribution-ShareAlike. Would you plz clarify on a doubt of mine, that if the author (in Flickr) ever if changes the copyright of those images to something: Not OK to Commons like Attribution-NoDerivs, will the bot (like FlickreviewR 2) immediatley considers it as Not OK and so eligible for deletion? --Gpkp (
u •
t •
c) 09:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your edit summary citing the WP NFC guideline. I won't be making that mistake again. Cheers! -- Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 22:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rafat Albadr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Physical ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
you wrote | notes |
---|---|
It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot; |
|
if he had created the screenshot; he presumably had the game mod it was created from, and wouldn't have needed to request a copy of it. |
|
There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent. |
|
(it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale) |
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to win every disagreement I have on the wikipedia. I always do my best to consider the other guy's point of view. And, if after I have done so, I conclude I was wrong, I say so. This is what is best for the project.
Is there some policy reason why nonfree images shouldn't be in infoboxex? I couldn't find one, nevertheless, I moved it out of the infobox, when I restored it.
A year later Hullaballoo excised the image, again. This time their edit summary was "nonfree lede image in BLP".
I applaud administrator Ronhjones closing comment at File talk:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg. It was a near-run thing. My regular wikistalker confused one administrator, who couldn't distinguish between their bogus vandal sockpuppet edits and genuine substantive positive edits.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Wikipedia uses a photo from the same source, and it's fair-free use rationale is justified but this is not? How is the fact there is no non-free substitute not a justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that your post at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#This just in... spells McConnell's name Motch. My keyboard is a bit slippery and I make mistakes like that all the time. OTOH if you want it spelled that way that is fine - thought I'd let you know just in case. Regards. MarnetteD| Talk 18:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear HW, The image File:Bernie Dresel Playing Drums.jpg license has been updated to what I hope is the most correct/appropriate. This to be used on the Bernie Dresel page. Please check this to make sure it is right. Of all things that I've uploaded or created on Wikipedia (which is many), knowing what is the correct attribution and licensing for images/picture is the most difficult. In this case, Dresel was contacted after the draft was written and forwarded/authorized his own bio pic (which he owns). At that point there seems to be several licenses listed that apply to that situation. Evidently I am still quite unclear as to which among the long licensing list is the most applicable for current, copyrighted material used from the creator (who gave permission). Please advise if possible.
Thanks for your help! Shelyric ( talk) 11:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I object to your characterization of my good faith nomination of Sarah Hoyt, and I find your accusation of bad faith un-civil. I spent several hours trying to research the subject after learning of the author and article's existence but after finding reason to doubt notability and an almost complete lack of compliant sourcing on the page I followed the procedures listed on wikipedia. I would appreciate an apology. Imadethisstupidaccount ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
As you can see from my edit summary reverting you again, you're risking a block if you persist. Nonetheless, you have two choices. One, comment at the AfD that it should be snow closed and why. Two, take it to ANI and get an administrator to agree with you and close it that way. But you can't on your own close it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi HW. I'm wondering what you think about this file's non-free use. The person behind the bag (so to speak) is still living so may be it's possible that he's still performing as the unknown comic which makes a non-free not really acceptable per WP:FREER. At the same time, this might be considered one of the exemptions to NFCC#1 mentioned in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI since it seems his appearance played a big role in his popularity (even though it's just a paper bag). Given the Unknown Comic seemed to reach his peak of popularity in the early to mid 1970s, there might also be a free publicity photo floating around out there that might be OK as {{ PD-US-no notice}}. Lots of files show up in a Google Image search (mostly screenshots), but I'm not sure where else to check. Any ideas? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Is this part also need to be removed? Sources, a Radio station website.
"Cabello started dating English dating coach Matthew Hussey in February 2018"
/info/en/?search=Camila_Cabello EditorsHelp101 ( talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
One user has messed up redirection for the page Amanda Cerny. As you have worked on that page previously, can you take a look? Thanks 106.51.132.220 ( talk) 10:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The photograph of Congressman Chudoff that I added to the List of Jewish Members of the United States Congress article is the one included in his Wikipedia article, and is listed as being from the Pennsylvania Legislature and being "fair use": /info/en/?search=Earl_Chudoff#/media/File:Earl_Chudoff_PA_Legislature_Pic.jpeg. Do you have additional information that belies what is claimed in the Earl Chudoff article? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 01:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello
You seem to have removed images that I posted for the Scott Williams article. Some were taken by me, showing the artist's work, whcich I had permission to show. How can I get these pictures back? I had permissions, and hold the copyright on some.
/info/en/?search=Scott_Williams_(artist)
Please explain how NPOV issues are caused by stating voting record on human rights in the same manner as voting record on animal welfare is stated. Dftm86 ( talk) 19:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Do you think there's a chance that File:1943-First Four AAGPBL.gif and File:AAGPBL Victory Song.jpg are possibly {{ PD-US-no notice}}? If or {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. If not, then neither file's non-free use seems NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはHullaballoo Wolfowitzたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment here. It inspired me to make this comment. I did ping you, but I don't think the ping worked (as the software doesn't like pings added to already signed sections), so leaving you this note instead. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I am trying my best to learn all the ins and outs of non-free images so hopefully you can give me some input? So looking at your comments it appears that I've overstepped some non-free image rules by putting a picture of the mask they wear in the info box. Is there a specific guideline on what can/cannot go in the info box? and follow up, if the image is not placed in the info box but possibly used in the article itself could that possibly be allowed? Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK ( talk) 08:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You removed the image File:CGP Grey stick figure.png from CGP Grey with the message "disputed nonfree uses should be removed pending resolution of the dispute, and no one denies that this use violates NFCC#1". However, there is a discussion at Talk:CGP Grey#Image where everyone besides yourself HAS denied that the image violates NFCC. Because you stopped responding on the talk page, the dispute is essentially resolved in favor of keeping the image. You may continue to make your case and keep the discussion going on the talk page, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus (that the image is acceptable) will stand per WP:BRD. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that the Astral dreadnought article you have recently restored has been taken into a regular AfD, in case you want to give your opinion. Daranios ( talk) 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:Playboy Playmate template list. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES ( talk) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:PlayboyPlaymateTimeHeader. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES ( talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe your signature is breaking the WP:NOTADVOCACY rule of Wikipedia. I think your signature is political in nature. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
As User:Levivich mentions, this is a slippery slope. Though I object to the first part mentioning about administrators, there is no clear cut case in WP:SOAPBOX. However, the political part is a clear cut case. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. " -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem is the slippery slope, and I say that as someone who hates "slippery slope" arguments. If the community permits one editor to put "support HK" in their signature then the community can't really stop me from adding "support Brazil" or what have you, and if it catches on, our talk pages will become covered in political slogans. At that point we'll pass a rule prohibiting it.
Wait... isn't that what already happened? Levivich dubious – discuss 18:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Using that signature on an article talk page is a black-and-white violation of NOT policy. The only question is whether this violation is causing any meaningful disruption, and on that point I'm not convinced. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them.So yes they are Wikilawyering about the wording of the policy. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Suit yourself. Let's take this to ANI. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's_signature -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Moretto. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sandstein 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerning the Andrea Elson article, non-free headshot was added because no free alternative is currently available. When one is found, I would be happy to add it. Wk3v78k23tnsa ( talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) ( talk page watcher)@ Wk3v78k23tnsa: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the file from the article since this type of non-free use is pretty much never allowed. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 because it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1; if you disagree with the tag, feel free to explain why on the file's talk page. Just for reference, the fact that a free equivalent doesn't currently exist is almost always never consider a sufficient justification for using a non-free one in this type of way. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi HW. I understand why you removed this file, but it was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 16#File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg and kept as a result. Then, there was also this from just last month by another editor who, like yourself, does quite a bit of NFCC cleanup. If something has changed since that 2016 FFD that now makes the file replaceble non-free use, then perhaps a better thing to do would be to re-discuss this at FFD. Even with the new infobox image someone might still try and argue that the file should be kept, but only moved to the body of the article. Simply removing the file so that it ends up deleted per F5 will most likely only lead to someone just re-adding it. Normally, I would suggest tagging it with rfu, but the admin who reviews the tag would probably decline it and say the file should be brought to FFD instead based on the above. I know others sometimes give you a hard time regarding your efforts to try and clean up NFCC problems, but I think you do a good job and very rarely make a mistake when you remove a file. I just think this time it might be better to not ignore the previous FFD and instead try and seek clarification or a reversal of it instead. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize for leaving a dodgy comment a couple of years ago. I think at the time you weren't communicating. Stay safe. scope_creep Talk 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
No content
Can you wikilink me to the Wikipedia article that describes what constitutes the parameters of a "current source" before information should be removed? I see you using that rationale in a number of your recent edits and would like to know what it is based off of. Thanks, on camera 01:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone reported you. See WP:ANI#Hullaballoo Wolfowitz making up sourcing rules to delete content they apparently disapprove. Not me. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Asger Aaboe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "A. R. Long". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14#"A. R. Long" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A reminder that accusing an editor of misogyny belongs in a conduct forum (such as ANI) rather than in a content forum such as AFD, as happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Delaney. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Because of your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aviam_Soifer, I searched here and there to see how true it was, and I'm highly disappointed with what I found. The fact that every athlete is considered notable (incorretly by WP:NOLYMPICS, if I may add) merely by participating in an olympics is really disturbing. Guess I should participate more in AfD of sportsmen than academics. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! First, while the situation at Gabbie Carter did warrant an extended note, it was not criterion G6. I briefly used the generic {{ db}} template to store the note. That's probably the best way to put it on the face of the page; a talk page comment could also have been used.
That said, after re-reading the article, I agree that the BLP violations, while subtle in their placement, were profound in their effect. I have deleted it under criterion G10, because even if there was no malice in creating the article, the effects were too severe to allow it to stand. I used your wording in the expanded reason for deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please help some one has put delection request for article Pokemon in India. So help me to because before also it was previously also it was nominated. But you canel this request. Thank you
The photo in question was provided by photographer and copyright holder, Sue Melke, who is Barbara Niven’s partner in one business and her media branding consultant responsible for the content of her web page. If the photo is not properly identified, please let me know what needs done. Otherwise, the photo was provided to be placed on the Barbara Niven page and should be restored.
Thank you, Old Beeg .. warble·· 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries. // Timothy :: talk 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I had mentioned in the descriptions of those uploads in the article Colin Keiver that I have permission from the publishers of those images. I am unsure as to why you had deleted them. Please, undo those edits or explain why. Johny3936 ( talk) 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention how you then proceed to change the image of him in the cockpit of the airplane to the main cover image. If anything, remove the others WITH REASON though leave that out of the picture that would represent him. Please do explain why you have decided to vandalize this Wikipedia page without reason. I’ll mention it again, both of those images had been approved for usage. Johny3936 ( talk) 14:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I am beginning to get tired of these confrontational Wikipedia moderators like Hullaballoo who make edits without even explaining what they did. If we’re playing by the Wikipedia rules, is that how it is supposed to be done when you’re making such a large edit to the page? I am asking that you stop changing that picture to the profile picture. It is terrible. You can leave it as a photo in the body section of the page instead of putting a terrible photo that just looks worse than ever with the text below it at the top. Also, of course, just like anyone with their own profile page on this website, Hullaballoo, strikes with the confrontational behaviour and tells me I should learn Wikipedia’s policies before I “embarrass” myself “even further”. Isn’t that mature there. Well, the thing is that you work on Wikipedia constantly and I am unsure how you haven’t embarrassed you or your family yet at this point. I am removing that picture from the cover image. Do not change it. You are genuinely vandalizing my work when you do so. I will change that picture back to where it was before and it can be left here. I’ve read some of your other discussions on your page and you are definitely nothing more than confrontational with everyone on Wikipedia. Johny3936 ( talk) 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, changing the text under the image? Are you serious? There is a reason it is as detailed is it is! It’s like writing a math equation then cutting it short for space and removing half of the symbols. It doesn’t work that way. Please fix that yourself or leave this page alone. You are genuinely crossing the line from your overdramatic orders regarding the images to now changing things that don’t even need to be changed. Get a grip bud. Johny3936 ( talk) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see you deleted the newspaper cover I added to Carlos Petroni. In San Francisco, those papers were rather iconic. My thought was that an image of a well known project by Petroni would improve the article, and add greater understanding to his work. Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for all the great work you do Hullaballoo Wolfowitz!
Coolabahapple (
talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you deleted all of the images from Lee Weiner's page. Each image has a non-free use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As a follow up, I am also wondering why WP:NFCCE did not apply before you deleted the images from the article, specifically, "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." By deleting the images from the article without notifying me (the uploading editor) and allowing an opportunity to provide a non-free-use defense on the file page, the files are now set to be deleted as orphans per criterion 7. In the meantime, the WP:NFCCE process appears to have been applied by an admin to the images, and I am responding on the file pages to the extent that it seems possible to better explain a non-free-use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you took the profile image of Viper off his page. This has happened twice now with different people. I can confirm I have full permission to put his profile picture on the page as per https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/695843896361484378/763746370125037568/Screenshot_20201008-075344.png.
I admit this proof is a little dodgy - I have no idea if he actually sent the email or not. If you require more proof to his consent for the picture to be used on the page then I'll try and get a full statement out of him. If it's not that and there's something wrong with the submitting process that I have done please tell me. Thank you - Kettleonwater ( talk) 13:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to get some clarity on why you reverted the tag I placed on the page Lee Wagstaff. You used the phrase "facially invalid" which I do not understand. From my perspective, the subject of this article has no business being in an encyclopedia of knowledge. The subject is not notable in any discernable way. No relevant citations on the page are valid and no other verifiable citations could be found. ThePhantom65 ( talk) 05:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I only put the tag on there because a previous reviewer did and it was improperly removed by a different editor, not allowing for a proper decision. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Wug·
a·po·des 04:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have removed the relationship status for both individuals on their pages.
For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 you stated →Personal life: no current source
For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 you stated →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated
I did not know just because you saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, you had the ability to remove their relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up?
On Google news, the first page brings three recent articles that clearly state they are still in a relationship:
If you go to their verified instagram accounts, they are very much still a couple:
https://www.instagram.com/gchahal/
https://www.instagram.com/rubina.bajwa/
You had no right to remove content from this page as this clearly violates wikipedia guidelines. Please revert your edits and place this content back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 ( talk) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 ( talk) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have archived your talk page and removed all pre-2016 comments. Feel free to revert me. -- 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Jar Jar Binks Must Die.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi HW. Welcome back. Now that your back, I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at File:Cindy Wilson.jpg. Do you think this could possibly be {{ PD-US-no notice}} since it's non-free justification seem a bit iffy and it's unlikely that the original source is someone's Pinterest account? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Wolfie is back, Hooray!
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
That is not a reason to remove well-sourced content. And, your previous summary was that was unsourced gossip. There are now two good sources, and there is no reason to remove it. WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Not sure how you defined it as gossip when content is supported by sources are reliable source as per WP:KO/RS#R. In addition, I read this discussion in which I believe you are the same guy involved there as well, which stated that it can be included if they are reliable source which they are indeed reliable source and confirmed by both their agencies. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice your signature when I first saw it. I'm sorry to say, it stands out, and quite for the wrong reasons. It's blatantly uncivil and polemical. I see you're rather fresh off of a 6 months block for exactly this kind of issue, but if you're not ready to fix this issue, it might have to be re-examined. @ Wugapodes: FYI (as closer of that discussion), and for your independent judgement on this editor's signature too... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Sandstein 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.
Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.
Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old
interaction ban, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other
logged community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (
talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After a community review of this block there is no consensus to reverse or alter it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:09, 20 September 2021 (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.
About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Wikipedia yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" ( [3]), and of "sloth" ( [4]). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs.
In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Wikipedia's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct. Sandstein 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I have started a thread at WP:ANI that involves you. It can be found here. Hopefully someone will copy over anything you wish to post. If I see it, I will do so. — Ched ( talk) 14:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DEStevenson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Gpkp u • t • c has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.
Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings! Hope u r seeing this message...
have a nice day!
Many thanks for your valuable suggestions on image files...
--Gpkp u • t • c 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hannesbok.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ― Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ship of Ishtar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Raymond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Bgsu98 ( talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The article Mission: Interplanetary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable. Most of the current sources are primary or not independent. TipsyElephant ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Curtis Books, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 20:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Johnwcampbell1965.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:High place cabell.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I was reviewing album articles and found four album covers on Giant Killers (EP). Just wanted to draw your attention to this page. Mburrell ( talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
This is fine, I suppose, but may I make a suggestion, since you appear to take it upon yourself to hunt down unfree imagery: In cases where, as you yourself argue, the image is "replaceable by text", why not provide this text at the time you remove the image? Or at the very least transfer the image caption into the article prose instead of simply blanking it alongside the image? I am asking because sometimes I invest considerable effort into researching the origin and content of images, and cite them, with literature etc., in the image description. If the image is deleted for some reason, this research is also lost from view.
In short, when deleting images, for good reason im most cases I am sure, please make sure that no encyclopedic information is lost by the blanking of the image description page. -- dab (𒁳) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Back when Margo Feiden wasn't yet an article, you remarked on the AfC that
If you could dig up that reference or point me in the right direction I would appreciate eversomuch. Also, I seem to remember at least one reviewer said that the cast was made up of High School for the Performing Arts students?...if you have any idea where I could find a ref for that statement that would be *awesome*. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The article title, "Teen-Age Troupe Trying 'Peter Pan' For Off Broadway", pretty much says almost all we need to know; the article also reports that the cost of staging the production would be $600 -- which, even in 1961, couldn't possibly stage a professional production in Manhattan. But, hey, if you read the court decisions in the fights between Feiden and Al Hirschfeld/the Hirschfeld estate, you'd see that her reputation for veracity . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I see you have removed images of TV show cast from Empty Nest and EastEnders. Is WP:NFCC#8 sufficient enough? If so, how would readers expect open content to help people understand the TV series? Can readers understand info about cast and characters? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I see from the state of your talk page that you are a seasoned and controversial editor here. I don't have a big issue with your edit removing the image, but I'm interested in the explanation about the fair use rationale being 'invalid'. Surely it serves a purpose for showing the distinctive visual branding and range of products they typically carry? Cheers daylon124 ( talk)
Regarding this, I do not see that it applies in this case. The kiss is the main reason this couple is WP:Notable. It's not about "oh, readers can imagine them kissing." It's about the fact that this particular moment is groundbreaking/historical and the image is displaying that particular moment. While they have kissed other times on the series, it is this kiss that received all of the media attention. We are allowed to include a non-free image when the imagery itself is the discussion or when the imagery validly aids the topic of discussion. And, no, I do not believe that what you did in this case -- making the image the lead image -- is the solution. This is per what I stated with this edit. Furthermore, whether or not to keep this image was discussed before; see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg. The consensus was to keep the image. I suggest you put it up for another WP:Files for discussion if you want it deleted. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I did not make a nonconstructive removal of sourced claim to the above article. I made a minor grammar edit (removing an unnecessary comma). Regards Denisarona ( talk) 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have reverted your edits on Gia Darling, Francesca Le, Cash Markman, Tim Von Swine, Tiffany Clark and Deidre Holland, Please use Afd to gain a consensus, not just arbitrarily delete based on your personal viewpoint. -- John B123 ( talk) 16:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- John B123 ( talk) 06:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
I recently uploaded few pics from Flickr to Commons. Majority of images are those of copyrights: Attribution-ShareAlike. Would you plz clarify on a doubt of mine, that if the author (in Flickr) ever if changes the copyright of those images to something: Not OK to Commons like Attribution-NoDerivs, will the bot (like FlickreviewR 2) immediatley considers it as Not OK and so eligible for deletion? --Gpkp (
u •
t •
c) 09:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your edit summary citing the WP NFC guideline. I won't be making that mistake again. Cheers! -- Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 22:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rafat Albadr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Physical ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
you wrote | notes |
---|---|
It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot; |
|
if he had created the screenshot; he presumably had the game mod it was created from, and wouldn't have needed to request a copy of it. |
|
There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent. |
|
(it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale) |
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't want to win every disagreement I have on the wikipedia. I always do my best to consider the other guy's point of view. And, if after I have done so, I conclude I was wrong, I say so. This is what is best for the project.
Is there some policy reason why nonfree images shouldn't be in infoboxex? I couldn't find one, nevertheless, I moved it out of the infobox, when I restored it.
A year later Hullaballoo excised the image, again. This time their edit summary was "nonfree lede image in BLP".
I applaud administrator Ronhjones closing comment at File talk:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg. It was a near-run thing. My regular wikistalker confused one administrator, who couldn't distinguish between their bogus vandal sockpuppet edits and genuine substantive positive edits.
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Ivanvector ( Talk/ Edits) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Wikipedia uses a photo from the same source, and it's fair-free use rationale is justified but this is not? How is the fact there is no non-free substitute not a justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that your post at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#This just in... spells McConnell's name Motch. My keyboard is a bit slippery and I make mistakes like that all the time. OTOH if you want it spelled that way that is fine - thought I'd let you know just in case. Regards. MarnetteD| Talk 18:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Dear HW, The image File:Bernie Dresel Playing Drums.jpg license has been updated to what I hope is the most correct/appropriate. This to be used on the Bernie Dresel page. Please check this to make sure it is right. Of all things that I've uploaded or created on Wikipedia (which is many), knowing what is the correct attribution and licensing for images/picture is the most difficult. In this case, Dresel was contacted after the draft was written and forwarded/authorized his own bio pic (which he owns). At that point there seems to be several licenses listed that apply to that situation. Evidently I am still quite unclear as to which among the long licensing list is the most applicable for current, copyrighted material used from the creator (who gave permission). Please advise if possible.
Thanks for your help! Shelyric ( talk) 11:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I object to your characterization of my good faith nomination of Sarah Hoyt, and I find your accusation of bad faith un-civil. I spent several hours trying to research the subject after learning of the author and article's existence but after finding reason to doubt notability and an almost complete lack of compliant sourcing on the page I followed the procedures listed on wikipedia. I would appreciate an apology. Imadethisstupidaccount ( talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
As you can see from my edit summary reverting you again, you're risking a block if you persist. Nonetheless, you have two choices. One, comment at the AfD that it should be snow closed and why. Two, take it to ANI and get an administrator to agree with you and close it that way. But you can't on your own close it.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi HW. I'm wondering what you think about this file's non-free use. The person behind the bag (so to speak) is still living so may be it's possible that he's still performing as the unknown comic which makes a non-free not really acceptable per WP:FREER. At the same time, this might be considered one of the exemptions to NFCC#1 mentioned in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI since it seems his appearance played a big role in his popularity (even though it's just a paper bag). Given the Unknown Comic seemed to reach his peak of popularity in the early to mid 1970s, there might also be a free publicity photo floating around out there that might be OK as {{ PD-US-no notice}}. Lots of files show up in a Google Image search (mostly screenshots), but I'm not sure where else to check. Any ideas? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 06:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Is this part also need to be removed? Sources, a Radio station website.
"Cabello started dating English dating coach Matthew Hussey in February 2018"
/info/en/?search=Camila_Cabello EditorsHelp101 ( talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
One user has messed up redirection for the page Amanda Cerny. As you have worked on that page previously, can you take a look? Thanks 106.51.132.220 ( talk) 10:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The photograph of Congressman Chudoff that I added to the List of Jewish Members of the United States Congress article is the one included in his Wikipedia article, and is listed as being from the Pennsylvania Legislature and being "fair use": /info/en/?search=Earl_Chudoff#/media/File:Earl_Chudoff_PA_Legislature_Pic.jpeg. Do you have additional information that belies what is claimed in the Earl Chudoff article? AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 01:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello
You seem to have removed images that I posted for the Scott Williams article. Some were taken by me, showing the artist's work, whcich I had permission to show. How can I get these pictures back? I had permissions, and hold the copyright on some.
/info/en/?search=Scott_Williams_(artist)
Please explain how NPOV issues are caused by stating voting record on human rights in the same manner as voting record on animal welfare is stated. Dftm86 ( talk) 19:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Do you think there's a chance that File:1943-First Four AAGPBL.gif and File:AAGPBL Victory Song.jpg are possibly {{ PD-US-no notice}}? If or {{ PD-US-not renewed}}. If not, then neither file's non-free use seems NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 08:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
この
ミラ
PはHullaballoo Wolfowitzたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます!
フレフレ、みんなの未来!/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ
P 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment here. It inspired me to make this comment. I did ping you, but I don't think the ping worked (as the software doesn't like pings added to already signed sections), so leaving you this note instead. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I am trying my best to learn all the ins and outs of non-free images so hopefully you can give me some input? So looking at your comments it appears that I've overstepped some non-free image rules by putting a picture of the mask they wear in the info box. Is there a specific guideline on what can/cannot go in the info box? and follow up, if the image is not placed in the info box but possibly used in the article itself could that possibly be allowed? Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK ( talk) 08:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. You removed the image File:CGP Grey stick figure.png from CGP Grey with the message "disputed nonfree uses should be removed pending resolution of the dispute, and no one denies that this use violates NFCC#1". However, there is a discussion at Talk:CGP Grey#Image where everyone besides yourself HAS denied that the image violates NFCC. Because you stopped responding on the talk page, the dispute is essentially resolved in favor of keeping the image. You may continue to make your case and keep the discussion going on the talk page, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus (that the image is acceptable) will stand per WP:BRD. – IagoQnsi ( talk) 17:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that the Astral dreadnought article you have recently restored has been taken into a regular AfD, in case you want to give your opinion. Daranios ( talk) 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:Playboy Playmate template list. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES ( talk) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:PlayboyPlaymateTimeHeader. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES ( talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe your signature is breaking the WP:NOTADVOCACY rule of Wikipedia. I think your signature is political in nature. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
As User:Levivich mentions, this is a slippery slope. Though I object to the first part mentioning about administrators, there is no clear cut case in WP:SOAPBOX. However, the political part is a clear cut case. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. " -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem is the slippery slope, and I say that as someone who hates "slippery slope" arguments. If the community permits one editor to put "support HK" in their signature then the community can't really stop me from adding "support Brazil" or what have you, and if it catches on, our talk pages will become covered in political slogans. At that point we'll pass a rule prohibiting it.
Wait... isn't that what already happened? Levivich dubious – discuss 18:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Using that signature on an article talk page is a black-and-white violation of NOT policy. The only question is whether this violation is causing any meaningful disruption, and on that point I'm not convinced. Levivich dubious – discuss 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them.So yes they are Wikilawyering about the wording of the policy. -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Suit yourself. Let's take this to ANI. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's_signature -- Tyw7 ( 🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then ( ping me) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Moretto. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sandstein 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerning the Andrea Elson article, non-free headshot was added because no free alternative is currently available. When one is found, I would be happy to add it. Wk3v78k23tnsa ( talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) ( talk page watcher)@ Wk3v78k23tnsa: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the file from the article since this type of non-free use is pretty much never allowed. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 because it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1; if you disagree with the tag, feel free to explain why on the file's talk page. Just for reference, the fact that a free equivalent doesn't currently exist is almost always never consider a sufficient justification for using a non-free one in this type of way. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi HW. I understand why you removed this file, but it was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 16#File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg and kept as a result. Then, there was also this from just last month by another editor who, like yourself, does quite a bit of NFCC cleanup. If something has changed since that 2016 FFD that now makes the file replaceble non-free use, then perhaps a better thing to do would be to re-discuss this at FFD. Even with the new infobox image someone might still try and argue that the file should be kept, but only moved to the body of the article. Simply removing the file so that it ends up deleted per F5 will most likely only lead to someone just re-adding it. Normally, I would suggest tagging it with rfu, but the admin who reviews the tag would probably decline it and say the file should be brought to FFD instead based on the above. I know others sometimes give you a hard time regarding your efforts to try and clean up NFCC problems, but I think you do a good job and very rarely make a mistake when you remove a file. I just think this time it might be better to not ignore the previous FFD and instead try and seek clarification or a reversal of it instead. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize for leaving a dodgy comment a couple of years ago. I think at the time you weren't communicating. Stay safe. scope_creep Talk 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
No content
Can you wikilink me to the Wikipedia article that describes what constitutes the parameters of a "current source" before information should be removed? I see you using that rationale in a number of your recent edits and would like to know what it is based off of. Thanks, on camera 01:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Someone reported you. See WP:ANI#Hullaballoo Wolfowitz making up sourcing rules to delete content they apparently disapprove. Not me. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Asger Aaboe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 02:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "A. R. Long". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14#"A. R. Long" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
A reminder that accusing an editor of misogyny belongs in a conduct forum (such as ANI) rather than in a content forum such as AFD, as happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Delaney. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Because of your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aviam_Soifer, I searched here and there to see how true it was, and I'm highly disappointed with what I found. The fact that every athlete is considered notable (incorretly by WP:NOLYMPICS, if I may add) merely by participating in an olympics is really disturbing. Guess I should participate more in AfD of sportsmen than academics. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings! First, while the situation at Gabbie Carter did warrant an extended note, it was not criterion G6. I briefly used the generic {{ db}} template to store the note. That's probably the best way to put it on the face of the page; a talk page comment could also have been used.
That said, after re-reading the article, I agree that the BLP violations, while subtle in their placement, were profound in their effect. I have deleted it under criterion G10, because even if there was no malice in creating the article, the effects were too severe to allow it to stand. I used your wording in the expanded reason for deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Please help some one has put delection request for article Pokemon in India. So help me to because before also it was previously also it was nominated. But you canel this request. Thank you
The photo in question was provided by photographer and copyright holder, Sue Melke, who is Barbara Niven’s partner in one business and her media branding consultant responsible for the content of her web page. If the photo is not properly identified, please let me know what needs done. Otherwise, the photo was provided to be placed on the Barbara Niven page and should be restored.
Thank you, Old Beeg .. warble·· 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries. // Timothy :: talk 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I had mentioned in the descriptions of those uploads in the article Colin Keiver that I have permission from the publishers of those images. I am unsure as to why you had deleted them. Please, undo those edits or explain why. Johny3936 ( talk) 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not to mention how you then proceed to change the image of him in the cockpit of the airplane to the main cover image. If anything, remove the others WITH REASON though leave that out of the picture that would represent him. Please do explain why you have decided to vandalize this Wikipedia page without reason. I’ll mention it again, both of those images had been approved for usage. Johny3936 ( talk) 14:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I am beginning to get tired of these confrontational Wikipedia moderators like Hullaballoo who make edits without even explaining what they did. If we’re playing by the Wikipedia rules, is that how it is supposed to be done when you’re making such a large edit to the page? I am asking that you stop changing that picture to the profile picture. It is terrible. You can leave it as a photo in the body section of the page instead of putting a terrible photo that just looks worse than ever with the text below it at the top. Also, of course, just like anyone with their own profile page on this website, Hullaballoo, strikes with the confrontational behaviour and tells me I should learn Wikipedia’s policies before I “embarrass” myself “even further”. Isn’t that mature there. Well, the thing is that you work on Wikipedia constantly and I am unsure how you haven’t embarrassed you or your family yet at this point. I am removing that picture from the cover image. Do not change it. You are genuinely vandalizing my work when you do so. I will change that picture back to where it was before and it can be left here. I’ve read some of your other discussions on your page and you are definitely nothing more than confrontational with everyone on Wikipedia. Johny3936 ( talk) 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, changing the text under the image? Are you serious? There is a reason it is as detailed is it is! It’s like writing a math equation then cutting it short for space and removing half of the symbols. It doesn’t work that way. Please fix that yourself or leave this page alone. You are genuinely crossing the line from your overdramatic orders regarding the images to now changing things that don’t even need to be changed. Get a grip bud. Johny3936 ( talk) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I see you deleted the newspaper cover I added to Carlos Petroni. In San Francisco, those papers were rather iconic. My thought was that an image of a well known project by Petroni would improve the article, and add greater understanding to his work. Hesperian Nguyen ( talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
A kitten for all the great work you do Hullaballoo Wolfowitz!
Coolabahapple (
talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you deleted all of the images from Lee Weiner's page. Each image has a non-free use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As a follow up, I am also wondering why WP:NFCCE did not apply before you deleted the images from the article, specifically, "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." By deleting the images from the article without notifying me (the uploading editor) and allowing an opportunity to provide a non-free-use defense on the file page, the files are now set to be deleted as orphans per criterion 7. In the meantime, the WP:NFCCE process appears to have been applied by an admin to the images, and I am responding on the file pages to the extent that it seems possible to better explain a non-free-use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you took the profile image of Viper off his page. This has happened twice now with different people. I can confirm I have full permission to put his profile picture on the page as per https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/695843896361484378/763746370125037568/Screenshot_20201008-075344.png.
I admit this proof is a little dodgy - I have no idea if he actually sent the email or not. If you require more proof to his consent for the picture to be used on the page then I'll try and get a full statement out of him. If it's not that and there's something wrong with the submitting process that I have done please tell me. Thank you - Kettleonwater ( talk) 13:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to get some clarity on why you reverted the tag I placed on the page Lee Wagstaff. You used the phrase "facially invalid" which I do not understand. From my perspective, the subject of this article has no business being in an encyclopedia of knowledge. The subject is not notable in any discernable way. No relevant citations on the page are valid and no other verifiable citations could be found. ThePhantom65 ( talk) 05:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I only put the tag on there because a previous reviewer did and it was improperly removed by a different editor, not allowing for a proper decision. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —
Wug·
a·po·des 04:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have removed the relationship status for both individuals on their pages.
For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 you stated →Personal life: no current source
For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 you stated →Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated
I did not know just because you saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, you had the ability to remove their relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up?
On Google news, the first page brings three recent articles that clearly state they are still in a relationship:
If you go to their verified instagram accounts, they are very much still a couple:
https://www.instagram.com/gchahal/
https://www.instagram.com/rubina.bajwa/
You had no right to remove content from this page as this clearly violates wikipedia guidelines. Please revert your edits and place this content back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 ( talk) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 ( talk) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have archived your talk page and removed all pre-2016 comments. Feel free to revert me. -- 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Jar Jar Binks Must Die.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi HW. Welcome back. Now that your back, I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at File:Cindy Wilson.jpg. Do you think this could possibly be {{ PD-US-no notice}} since it's non-free justification seem a bit iffy and it's unlikely that the original source is someone's Pinterest account? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Wolfie is back, Hooray!
Coolabahapple (
talk) 15:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
That is not a reason to remove well-sourced content. And, your previous summary was that was unsourced gossip. There are now two good sources, and there is no reason to remove it. WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Not sure how you defined it as gossip when content is supported by sources are reliable source as per WP:KO/RS#R. In addition, I read this discussion in which I believe you are the same guy involved there as well, which stated that it can be included if they are reliable source which they are indeed reliable source and confirmed by both their agencies. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice your signature when I first saw it. I'm sorry to say, it stands out, and quite for the wrong reasons. It's blatantly uncivil and polemical. I see you're rather fresh off of a 6 months block for exactly this kind of issue, but if you're not ready to fix this issue, it might have to be re-examined. @ Wugapodes: FYI (as closer of that discussion), and for your independent judgement on this editor's signature too... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Sandstein 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.
Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.
Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old
interaction ban, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other
logged community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (
talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After a community review of this block there is no consensus to reverse or alter it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:09, 20 September 2021 (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.
About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Wikipedia yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" ( [3]), and of "sloth" ( [4]). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs.
In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Wikipedia's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct. Sandstein 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I have started a thread at WP:ANI that involves you. It can be found here. Hopefully someone will copy over anything you wish to post. If I see it, I will do so. — Ched ( talk) 14:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DEStevenson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Gpkp u • t • c has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.
Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings! Hope u r seeing this message...
have a nice day!
Many thanks for your valuable suggestions on image files...
--Gpkp u • t • c 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hannesbok.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ― Susmuffin Talk 21:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ship of Ishtar.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 ( talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Raymond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Bgsu98 ( talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The article Mission: Interplanetary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable. Most of the current sources are primary or not independent. TipsyElephant ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Curtis Books, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 20:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Johnwcampbell1965.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:High place cabell.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)