User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 11

Slade

Hello I thought you might like to know of the several links to Slade releasing a new album this year. http://www.noise11.com/news/slade-release-first-album-27-years-2014-20131223 http://www.bravewords.com/news/215616 http://www.supajam.com/news/story/Holderless-Slade-for-2014-album http://www.slade-decades.com/91.html http://www.theallseeingeye.com/slade-hint-at-new-album-in-2014/ and http://www.nme.com/news/slade/74550 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheoneIlookupto (talk • contribs) 20:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy Reply

I just reviewed your reversion of my revision. What context does that paragraph bring to a discussion of Jenny McCarthy and her activism other than to slam and discredit her? Obviously she's kind of a looney, but this section of activism is the longest section of the article and it gets side-tracked with comments about the general discussion on autism and vaccinations. If it's not specifically about her, it shouldn't be included. heat_fan1 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

˜˜˜˜

Thanks for restoring my signature; my latest comment at Britmax' talk page, just after your note, gives more details of what I was doing and why I didn't catch the mistake. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that, I thought it might be a glitch somewhere. Going to bed now. Britmax (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Arcadia Lake (pornographic actress)

Thanks for cleaning up Arcadia Lake... it was one of my earliest attempts to "improve" a Wikipedia article and obviously I had no clue what I was doing (some would argue that I still don't, but that's another story...). Once Moraff's World got deleted, I thought that all of my article abominations had been purged, but I had forgotten how atrocious this one was, so thanks for taking the ol' sandblaster to it. One question though: considering what is left of the article, in terms of both content and sourcing, is there any indication that she meets WP:PORNBIO? I don't see any of the criteria applying and, if you agree, I think that the article should be nominated for deletion. What do you think? Canadian Paul 00:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Woody Allen mistake

Hi, you made a mistake in the Woody Allen page by reverting to the wrong version. I undid your change but removed the passage you and other reviewer had marked for deletion (re: Previn's low IQ) Clubintheclub (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No mistake. Removed, Mr/Ms I'm a new editor who's just happen to restart an old dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I filed a request for mediation. Hope we can solve this! Appreciate your valid concerns so lets work together to get it right. It may be that my addition is not great, but do we agree that the topic (the allegations and ensuing scandals) warrants discussion? If so, then its a matter of finding the right way to communicate that information Clubintheclub (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Woody Allen - violation of NPOV and BLP by user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 January 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 18:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Clubintheclub

Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I'm not sure we've interacted on this site before. If we have and it's slipped my mind, I do apologise, I've been in this place for so long. I wanted to drop you a note here about the interaction you had with User:Clubintheclub. I agree with your conservative BLP reversions at Woody Allen; this is the sort of material that we have to be extremely cautious about and you were right to revert. Can I thank you for that, and for raising it centrally? Nice work. I will never block another user based on suspicion, even by a trusted user such as yourself. If it's really a socking issue, I would prefer a SPI be raised. For repeated behavioural evidence that passes the WP:DUCK test, that's a block. I suggest if this situation were repeated, you would make it easier on the community if you chose either a SPI, an AN/I or the 3RR if they repeat after a formal warning (which you didn't give), in that order of utility. It's important that we're seen to follow due process, where it doesn't harm the mission to do so. Once the dodgy BLP claims were reverted out of the article, any one of those central locations would have been enough to deal with the behavioural issues. In this case I will be keeping an eye on Clubintheclub to keep them on the straight and narrow. Please let me know if you see or suspect anything else from them. Thanks again for bringing this to the community's attention, and for making the BLP reverts, and please take the suggestion I made in the good humour it was intended in. Oh and I should probably mention WP:ROPE which applies here. Any chance you could archive your talk page, as it's rather long? Best wishes, --John (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

New proposals at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014

Hello. Several new proposals have been submitted at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 since you last commented on it. You are invited to return to comment on the new proposals. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Jim Powers at AVN Hall of Fame

Hi. I noticed that you removed Jim Powers from the Hall of Fame article as unverifiable. According to archived versions of the AVN Awards website, he was inducted in 2005.[1][2]. The blue link to the wrong Jim Powers was a problem however. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Jim Powers may or may not be in the AVN Hall of Fame, but since Jim Powers apparently isn't, I removed him. While cleaning up a mess in another awards article, I came across this set of instructions -- Talk:List_of_performers_in_gay_porn_films#How_to_edit_this_article -- which I believe represents the consensus worked out after an extremely messy dispute a few years back, and which are excellent requirements for porn/erotica articles generally; I plan to post more about these later this weekend, on an appropriate policy board. And when I look at pages like List of vegans, with its name-by-name sourcing, not to mention List of performers in gay porn films, I'm convinced that current consensus calls for simply removing names that aren't properly referenced from lists like these, (It would be different if AVN actually had a page listing its HOF members, which could be used as a general page reference, but nobody seems to have turned one up). I've come to the conclusion that we've been way, way, way too lax in applying BLP to lists like these -- for the last five years, for example, identified this Andrew Rosen as being involved in the gay porn industry (see the history for [3]) -- and that the (likely temporary) removal of inadequately sourced text concerning what are in most cases pseudonyms is preferable across the board to allow the smaller but quite significant percentage of gross errors to remain. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Woody Allen, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 11:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Copyvio link warning, Reply

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Ray Nelson, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead.

• Gosh HW, you're really starting to grasp at straws. Even though its an archived page, the copyright acknowledgement is fairly obvious if you scroll down to the bottom of the page which you clearly didn't. That's a pretty basic error and unbecoming of someone with your kind of steadfast stubbornness. Have a nice day... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20071211153131/http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/9412/8oclock.html

"All content and design of this website are ©1997-98"

That does not mean that website holds the copyright to the story itself. Their assumption may have been that copyright had not been renewed by 1997 since the story had been published in 1963.

Is "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" still under copyright and to whom?

United States Copyright Office Public Catalog returns Full title, copyright number and date:

Eight o'clock in the morning. By Ray Nelson. RE0000534795 1963

Eight o'clock in the morning; short story / By Ray Nelson. V2358P306 1988

Since the copyright was renewed at the time the story was opted for the movie "They Live" in 1988 and appeared in an Isaac Asimov anthology copyrighted it is not public domain like Charles Beaumont's "Elegy" and certain other mid 20th century sci fi stories.--Naaman Brown (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Paloma Faith

I reversed your edit on Paloma Faith. The fact may qualify as trivial to you, but the artist and the venue of the show make it noteworthy enough for a mention per WP:NOTPAPER. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion that may be of interest to you

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kylie Ireland

Check the link I cited it goes directly to her website describing the origin of her stage name. The link on the original is dead and blatantly inaccurate.

Kylie Ireland

Check the link I cited it goes directly to her website describing the origin of her stage name. The link on the original is dead and blatantly inaccurate.

Kylie Ireland

Check the link I cited it goes directly to her website describing the origin of her stage name. The link on the original is dead and blatantly inaccurate.

Kylie Ireland

Check the link I cited it goes directly to her website describing the origin of her stage name. The link on the original is dead and blatantly inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.61.6 (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Hiya, Hulla. Just wanted you to know I'm also helping keep an eye on Scarlett Johansson to keep it from getting needlessly politicized. Geez, of all the articles where people want to debate Middle East politics!  : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Kay Sage

Discuss [4] before edit warring - you are totally wrong regarding your so-called claim...Modernist (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Obvious NFCC violations require no discussion to remove, and are exceptions to 3RR, as you well know. Stop posting phony warnings against editors who enforce policies you refuse to comply with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

PJ Sparxx

I have added MULTIPLE active references. Please stop vandalising my changes to this article. 77.234.43.138 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing content failing WP:RS and WP:BLP isn't vandalism. End of discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

ANI

I mentioned you at ANI. You should have received a system notification, but just in case you don't pay much attention to those, the thread is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, on an unrelated issue, you really should archive this page. It's almost a million bytes and thus takes a very long time to save changes to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me find reliable sources?

Hola! Can you help me find reliable sources for Tahnee Welch's biography? I'd be thankful if you can point me to the right direction so that we can complete the article. Cogiati (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with Google Books and a few prominent newspapers. Also, if you can access them (often via your public library) a good magazine database can be very helpful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

NFCC #6

I would like to better understand what you are saying with this edit. I just don't get how the use of this image violates NFCC #6 mainly because I don't understand NFCC #6.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It fails NFCC#8 (not #6) because it neither identifies the subject of the article (the sect itself) nor is it necessary to understand any of the text of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

El-Sayed M. Gad

I don't think being a college professor who wrote a few papers is an assertion of significance. BLP Prod at the least since it's unsourced and this guy does not appear to be notable. --JamesMoose (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Black Flame (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Ashley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Confused,,,

Hello, I'm a little confused about the "warnings" you posted on my talk page. When have I created pages that attack, threaten or disparage their subject? I have never done that. --DendroNaja (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Maryam Rajavi Page

Hi - you have reverted several of my edits to the Maryam Rajavi page, noting that they have BLP issues. Can you please clarify on the talk-page of the article what specifically you are objecting to and why so that I can address it? Thank you and all the best. Poyani (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Wendy Davis (politician) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --NK (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop editing the Buy Short page. Just because you don't understand the subject does not mean it is a hoax. It is gaining recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocklevin (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

reverted

You have access reverted abuse, Edited by me are true and your Edit infringement

On George Markarian there is no evidence for their lives, Actor articles from reputable sites like the Internet Movie Database and Official website collected

Reverting you were insulting me --Kasir ^talk 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By policy, individuals should not be removed from the "living people" category without evidence of their death. By BLP policy, birth dates must be supported by reliable sources, with appropriate citations. By consensus, IMDB is not a reliable source for biographical data. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Please stop edit warring. Discuss not war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahibsaleem (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyril M. Kornbluth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Platt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Denis MacShane

I've started a discussion on the talk page. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Maria Swan

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Maria Swan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is substantially different from the one that was deleted. The previous version had no sources, where as this on has four (at least one of which would be considered reliable.). Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

notification of ani

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I hope you have a wonderful evening!!!

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

One more try...

HW, I'm an not a fan of ANI (or any other WP grievance processes), I prefer to talk things out and find consensus or at least compromise while achieving an understanding of the other person's viewpoint. According to your User page, you're a grandfather so it seems safe to assume that you are an older person and someone with a reasonable amount of life experience. Hopefully you are someone who has figured out that there is more to life than being "right" or "wrong".

I could make other assumptions, but they would be foolish as my impression of you is based solely on your demeanor and actions on Wikipedia and I'd like to change that. I'm not interested in being another person annoyed at or with you simply because I don't understand your motives.

That said, I'm making the effort to inquire with you in order to understand your views in a sincere and earnest manner. In other words, what are your opinions on how the site should work and what it should contain?

At this point, you could delete my comments outright again, or, respond in some less than civil manner, or, genuinely attempt to communicate. I'm hoping its the third, but its entirely up to you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thanks for the advice at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. I know it might have seemed like a silly series of questions but I genuinely appreciate the advice. Better that than I cause copyright problems with my idiotic bumbling. Thanks again. Stalwart111 00:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Help welcome

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I know that you have done plenty of large-scale cleanups at popular culture-related articles, so I thought I'd request your help with one of those. The article Dazed & Confused (magazine)‎ has just been turned upside down (and the "destruction" appears to be continuing), with various violations of the MOS: and fake references, not to mention the addition of loads of unreferenced content ([5]). Usually I wouldn't hesitate to revert a mass of edits like that, but some of the content looks useful to me, so I'm not sure what to do. Regards, Toccata quarta (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Care to out your two cents in at the talk page? Rusted AutoParts 15:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

A consensus poll has been conducted. Here's the link. Also, Locke Cole is stating he intends to neglect the consensus and add it anyway. Rusted AutoParts 12:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 9 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Carolina Kostner page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nicola Bryant marriage

Is Metacritic [6] a reliable enough source for her marriage? IMDB is disputed and it's odd we don't have a source for her marriage. Alatari (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

About that CSD tag...

Hi! As you probably remember, I tagged the article Kasturba Nagar as a G11 (promotional in tone). I guess I forgot the "unambiguous" part: it was clearly promotional to me as a reader, but I now see that it may not have been from someone else's perspective. The other issue is that, aside from a rewrite (and I don't know anything about this area, so I'm probably not the right person to do it anyway), I didn't know what else to do with a promotional article. What do you suggest we do with this article (fix, use another deletion process, other?) ChromaNebula (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Traditional family values

I hate to decline any speedy nom by you, but I think this dab page might be useful and its deletion controversial. Please, can you prod or AfD it instead? Bearian (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Gods of Pegāna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Beckford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Bonnie Rotten

You removed my last edit.

But Bonnie Rotten was interviewed in the Bangbros-video (ma12442 - 10/25/13 at 7:35 min) by the cammera-man and asked, what nationality she is.

Her answer was: "I am Italian, Polish and German."

I think that my source is more reliable than IAFD.

Bangbros is not a reliable source. Information in those videos is typically kayfabe at best. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

But it was the own statement of Bonnie Rotten and not of Bangbros. There is no reason to lie in this point. By the was IAFD just assert what Bonnies heritage is. It does not give a precise source.--Veritas-Aletheia (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

And the IAFD version isn't in the article either. What's your point? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Bang Bros. interview is a WP:PRIMARY source and as such, its use is allowed within the policy guidelines of WP. Since its a BLP article, its also covered under WP:BLPPRIMARY. Find another source that corroborates the Bang Bros. information and its citable source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wolfowitz

IAFD is at reference-number 1 in the article. The sentence "She is of Italian descent." is marked with [1]. So the reference to this assertion is IAFD.

My point is that you doubt the statement of Bonnie Rotten herself without any reason. There is no kayfabe in the interview. Did you actually see it?--Veritas-Aletheia (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Why Call Them Back From Heaven?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Flora Spencer-Longhurst and Jonathan Bailey

Thanks for removing the outdated information regarding the two being a couple. I wouldn't say it was gossip just rather it was out of date, the information that was cited was from 2012 and was only an inference. At some point, someone is going to put this stuff back into the respective articles. I would suggest putting something in the Talk pages and mention your edit there and hopefully any future editor would be more circumspect before reverting your last edit.

smrgeog (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunter Bryce

Since you contributed to or were otherwise involved in the above discussion, you may or may not wish to comment on the following discussion Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Hunter_Bryce which concerns a redirect created immediately after the discussion. I am leaving the same neutral note to everyone who edited the above AFD. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Interaction ban request. Thank you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I also made a comment regarding your nominations of my articles in the above mentioned discussion but I meant no offence to you or any other editor. I am not an experience editor like you so please, let me know if I made a mistake. Thanks, Talpatra (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For A7 and G11 there is no onus on the nominator to fix the article for you and I hope you can see the number ofgoes it took to get Custom4U right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

I really wish you would archive your talkpage. Its a nightmare if I'm on a tablet or slow connection. Spartaz ^Humbug!

107573 bytes and growing. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Opener of the Way, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Remove another valid dispute tag again and I won't even bother coming to your talk page, we'll go straight to AN/I. Don't bother responding, I don't care what you have to say. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Michael Fassbender article

Hello there. I've noticed that you've recently reverted an edit of mine on the Michael Fassbender article, under the rationale that my edit allegedly contradicts consensus. Could you point me to any references of that alleged consensus? The article's talk page offers no indications that any such consensus on this point has been reached, rendering your revert rather puzzling. Thanks. Malik047 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Elio Benzale Guerrero

I was hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding the speedy deletion of this article. The unverified claim to having played for Atlético Venezuela is not new. The one keep !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elio Benzale Guerrero was based on this claim and was rejected because it was as unverified two years ago as it is now. The remaining clubs for which he has played are not in fully professional leagues per WP:FPL. Thank you in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a borderline case, but I think a clearer explanation (even if no more than a PROD statement) is in order, since the article is updated with post-AFD career information. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

your threats are unwelcome

Your threats to remove my "editing privileges" are unwelcome. I suggest discussing the issue on the Talk page. That means replying to my arguments and observations on the article Talk page, and not unilaterally declaring what the state of the consensus is (Blaylockjam10, Vauxhall1964, Jim Michael, 75.94.101.187, Binksternet, and more all agree with me that the subject is at least LGBT). Your refer to my comments on a policy Talk page yet you are a no show in that discussion. If you don't have the time to interject yourself into that debate, I dare say you are not in a position to talk about how you are going to try and get me kicked off Wikipedia.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I discussed the matter on the Jodie Foster talk page, as you well know, since you've commented on at least one of them. I see no reason to waste my time on a fruitless discussion on a policy talk page when there's no chance a transient discussion is going to change an established policy. You acknowledged the edits you want aren't compliant with BLP policy requirements. Everything you say beyond that is moot. And if you insist on violating BLP, you will be blocked. That's not a "threat", it's just what's going to happen. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have discussed the matter far more than you have such that your coming to my Talk page to lecture me about that is entirely unnecessary. And, no, I did not acknowledge that. My position is that even if the BLP policy were correct in all respects, it is satisfied in the Foster case anyway (go look at my first comment on any of this today. Do I, or do I not, say "In any case, she DID self-identify"?). I suggest citing a diff if you insist on claiming such falsehoods. If you have the time to try and pick a fight with me or any other editor, you have the time to resolve the issue constructively. re "it's just what's going to happen" then just make it happen then and cease threatening me about it. I do not need to be badgered as well as prosecuted.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of RfC and request for participation

There is an RfC in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:

• Talk:Gun_control#RfC:_Remove_Nazi_gun_control_argument.3F

Thank you. --Lightbreather (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ink Master (season 4)

Although I replied on my talk page before realizing that you and Carriearchdale seem to have a history, I wanted to ping you about this and was surprised they hadn't come here first. Since they're new and you're not, please cut them some slack. It'd also be helpful if you'd archive your talk-page, since it's impossible to find stuff by scrolling. All the best, Miniapolis 14:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. "Carrie Archdale" has a well-established track record of disruptive editing and retaliatory, groundless complaints. Indulging such behavior only promotes further disruption, especially when it's administrators doing the indulging. I was by no means the first editor to raise questions about her WP:COMPETENCE (eg, User talk:Carriearchdale/Archive 1), and her responses and her groundless accusations there are quite telling. To say nothing of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Carriearchdale_and_Rachel_Reilly_articles, where every experienced editor who commented supported my complaints, most calling for limits on Archdale's editing -- yet somehow nothing was done. I strongly suggest you also review my statement here [7]; you might come to the realization that "Archdale" lied to you on your talk page, which is far worse than my being "combative" in dealing with dishonest, disruptive editors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty familiar with Carrie's editing (and saw their RFPP request, which indicates that they don't seem to understand the ramifications of page protection). You're free to do what you want, of course; it's just a timesink fighting instead of working on articles. All the best, Miniapolis 15:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

And as an editor with more than 60,000 edits whose activity has focused on enforcing BLP policy, I can assure you that dealing with editors like Archdale directly is less of a "timesink" than letting them run loose and cleaning up the fetid messes they leave afterwards. What I probably regret most in my editing was not being "combative" enough in dealing with User:Qworty, who I took to ANI in 2009, without useful results -- and we should all remember what a fiasco, and gigantic timesink, that turned out to be. Indulging really bad behavior like Carriearchdale's only encourages more bad behavior, more disruption, and an ever bigger "timesink" down the line. Do you really think an editor who does this [8] is editing competently and in good faith? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I mentioned you in a section about Science.Warrior. Just giving you a courtesy notification. Ishdarian 22:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

LAByrinth Theater Company

Done. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence

Hi. You contributed to a recent RFC about this topic area. This message is to notify you that the arbitration proceedings at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics are underway, and evidence about all disruptive edits to articles within this topic is being accepted at the relevant case page. If you wish to submit evidence for the committee to consider in reaching its decision, please do so now. The evidence phase of the case ends soon, and evidence submitted after the deadline may not be considered. Further advice on submitting evidence, and what evidence the committee will accept, is linked at the top of the evidence page. Please contact me or the other drafting arbitrator if you require more time to submit evidence. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 14:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiffany Limos

Thank you for your work on the Tiffany Limos article. I've been removing the same irrelevant information from that article for months(?) now and just the other day the other editor finally acknowledged my existence. They have claimed that Limos herself and her lawyers approved the text. I asked for help in dealing with it but as of yet, nobody has replied to my request. I just had some time while I'm out of town and checked to see what had happened with it when I saw your edits. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 02:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction needed

Dear Sir:

On the noticeboard you recently made this astute observation:

When disputes like this reach the media, they give the impression that Wikipedia is run by adolescent howler monkeys."

However would it not be accurate to add the following instead—

When disputes like this reach the media, they give the impression that Wikipedia is run by adolescent howler monkeys on Ritalin and Adderall.

Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,

A. Fan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.128 (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Appreciation

Hey HW, I've come to better appreciate your steadfastness recently. To use an American colloquialism, I have new found respect for how you "stick to your guns". This comment comes as a result of my interaction with Editors that I regard likely in the same way that you regard me, but I thought I'd share the sentiment nonetheless. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral notice to someone who has edited Desireé Cousteau that there is a Request for Comment there. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Strakosha

I was hopping I could get you to change your mind with regards to the speedy deletion of this article. The main concern of the last afd of not meeting WP:NSPORT has in fact not been addressed. The guideline applies only to footballers who have played in competitive matches. The one match he's played was not competitive, but a post-season friendly and would probably no be worth mentioning in the article if had made league appearances. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a borderline case, but I see just enough of an improvement to evade db-repost. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Politics

Take a look at Soraya Post, Kristina Winberg and Peter Lundgren (politician).--BabbaQ (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Marilyn Michaels page

Another editor has appeared out of the wood-work trying to beef up the Marilyn Michaels page. I have been trying to keep things from going overboard but they are now trying to add a lot more, like every time she has appeared on a talk show. Figured since you have shown interest in the page before you might want to have another look. Always helps having the opinion of another editor. I have already refereed them to previous discussions on the talk page and added a section to their talk page User talk:TheOldestEstablished addressing this. Thanks. Marauder40 (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

COI edits on Krysten Ritter and other articles

Hello,
I've started a discussion on conflict of interest noticeboard regarding the edits of ManagerTGE on Krysten Ritter, Dee Roscioli and Monica Raymund articles. Since you've dealt with some of these edits, I've thought that you may want to join the discussion. Thank you. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Matildas – A New Fashion in Football" (Nude athletes)

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
I noticed you knocked back a Speedy deletion on Matildas – A New Fashion in Football. You may be interested to know about a blocked editor who seems to be obsessed with that calendar. This page is likely to have been created by another of their many sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nixon2/Archive--220 of ^Borg 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Kat Dennings

Your edit you made to Kat Dennings added talk into the article. Could you elaborate on your edit, as I reverted it as removing content and adding talk into the article. Thank you! Novato 123chess456 (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate speedy

You reverted my CSD tag on List of thermodynamically relevant demons because it was an inaccurate speedy? Why is A1 invalid for the page? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the context was clear, and in any event an introductory sentence would resolve the problem. If a problem can fixed so easily, there's no case for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that the tag already requests context, and all that is needed is a sentence. Piguy101 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for your support of me during a recent situation regarding another editor. I really appreciate it, Daniellagreen (talk) (cont) 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Molly Ringwald, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages For Keeps and The Pick-up Artist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Article:Isabel Adrian

Was speedy deleted earlier with lower case. Author then quickly recreated the article with upper case. When I nominated again A7 you removed tag. Did you realize this was a second speedy delete? See First-speedy-delete Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The claims in the current article, whose accuracy you don't challenge -- a three-year stint on a notable reality TV program, appearances on another, and authoring a book published through a reputable trade house -- are well above the threshold for A7 deletion. The earlier speedy is irrelevant, and I'll assume that the version speedied didn't clearly make such assertions of notability. A7 deletion is not precedential, and once an independent editor had objected to the second speedy nomination, you should not have replaced it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'll leave it. I was not referring to the Speedy Delete in 2013. I was referring to the one done just hours ago by an Admin. User:GB fan... --Jersey92 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:User GGSIPU

Are you alright? Have you checked before making the revision ? CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You used an inaccurate edit summary, indicating you'd restored the nonfree image. I took you at your word. Your bad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Ann Arbor Derby Dimes

The same editor who originally nommed it for deletion has again AFD'd the article, won't take no for an answer: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Arbor Derby Dimes Not sure what the deal is here, any thoughts or help? Echoedmyron (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And now that I have contested the deletion, the same editor has [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Wardman AFD'd] another article that I created a long time ago. Given their editing history, I find it hard to believe this a a mere coincidence, but at the same time I'm not sure it meets the threshold for WP:Hound yet, although it's at least getting WP:POINTY. At any rate, it doesn't pas the smell test. Any help you can offer or advice would be appreciated. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

AFRI Model Nursery

A small nursery within a research institute w/o enough reliable sources is notable indeed for you or did i put a wrong tag? AFRI in under the umbrella of ICFRE, which has about 15 research intitutes and everyone having their own model nursery. Apart from that ICAR has hundreds of such specialised institutes spread all over India as almost everyone having model nursey. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 10:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing that the subject isn't notable enough, which doesn't justify speedy deletion, but requires an AFD or PROD. And A11 isn't an appropriate tag for an organization like this; it's intended for personal theories amd the like (especially crackpot ones). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Well then, then it should be AFDed instead. Thanks for the explanation in time. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Article: Carrie Fisher

Wondering why you reverted my edit listing her ex: [9] ? She appears as his partner on his page Zoey Tur.

Because it was entirely unsourced. And Wikipedia is not a chronicle of celebrity gossip, nor does it amplify reports of "dating" relationships into "partnerships". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There are sources such as the link above, and I wanted to keep consistency (relationships are two way), but I agree with you that steady dating vs. partnership is not well defined. I see that you took the Partner out of the infobox on Zoey Tur, which also keeps consistency. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Using an album cover in a userbox

Hi Hulla, I have a question for you. You seem pretty adamant that 'unfree images' not be used in userboxes. I'm just curious, why do you care so much? I mean, I'm sure there's somebody out there who owns the rights to the Brothers in Arms artwork, but I somehow suspect that that person is not you, and not someone you have any affiliation with whatsoever. So you are kind of defending the rights of someone who really may not care at all. Why? What's the gain for you here? Seems to me it's kind of a game for you, a power-play to enforce official policy. Am I on the right track here? What, exactly, is your deal? Help me understand where you're coming from. Vranak (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you know who does own the rights to that artwork? Are you sure that they don't care? Are you sure that they don't have any affiliation with HW? Are you able to explain why the rules shouldn't apply to you? DS (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Another Kind (Chad Oliver collection - cover art).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Another Kind (Chad Oliver collection - cover art).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, that was my fault. I fixed it. DS (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately removing sourced information, as you did at...

• Savannah (pornographic actress)
• Briana Banks
• Candida Royalle
• Christy Canyon
• Misty Dawn
• Kitten Natividad
• Sharon Mitchell
• Veronica Hart
• Annie Sprinkle
• Nina Hartley
• Amber Lynn
• Gloria Leonard
• Georgina Spelvin
• Rhonda Jo Petty
• Serena (pornographic actress)
• Kelly Nichols
• Seka
• Julia Parton
• Dani Daniels
• Elizabeth Hilden
• Diamond Foxxx
• Adrianna Luna
• Sam Phillips
• Sophie Dee
• Jennifer Stewart

...you may be blocked from editing. Edit warring to repeatedly add back factual inaccuracies also justifies a block, even if the 3RR limit is not breached.

Gosh, that's a lot of articles. Maybe taking this up at ANI would be better. It's also rather interesting that this list is identical to the articles that I have edited recently and all of the edits were after mine, Wikihounding? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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.

• Please do not continue to make disruptive edits to this articles or to edit war as you have done. Your opinion does not amount to policy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Maang

I changed the speedy to a prod tag, "concern=Difficult to source, possibly new, TV drama on Pakistani TV." Bearian (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

OK by me. I didn't speedy the article to begin with, just changed a vandalism tag to one I thought more accurately described the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I would like to know that why did you remove the speedy deletion tag from Vinod Gupta School of Management. This article is of one line only.I could be completely wrong.That's why i asked for your help.Thanks.--Param Mudgal (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Scott Disick

Hey, just letting you know that there had been a second AfD for Disick's article in 2012, which ended with a redirect. I think that the article versions are different enough to where it'd warrant a third AfD if it came to that, but I wanted to give you a head's up just in case anyone goes that route since you only referenced the first AfD. I think declining the speedy was the right idea in any case, but just passing this on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've let the nominator know about the reason (more coverage, content) and told him to take it to AfD if he wants to pursue it further. The guy's borderline, but I think he'd squeak by notability guidelines for the most part. (As much as part of me groans at that idea.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Re

You are true, I haven't noticed that. However there are over 150,000 Google entries for the string "Tawny Roberts" Shade 2003, a very few false positives. I assume the screenshot posted in the talk page is enough to conclude her scenes were not cut off as you speculated, it is just a question of selecting a better source, not really a question of verifiability failure. About me, I spent way too much time on "Tawny Roberts"/Shade. Also please stop with assuming bad faith and stop with insults, these is already enough drama and you are better than this. My best, Cavarrone 20:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

And there are 450,000 hits for "[Alyson Hannigan]" "sex tape", even though that's completely fabricated. Just because an IMDB claim gets mirrored and repeated doesn't make it true. And the screenshot linked on the talk page isn't either of the people Milowent claims it is; there are several online sources identifying the topless blonde as one Erika Nann, while the other woman might be the "Black Dress Bimbo" played by Shawn Frances Lee. In any case, you can turn up a full clip of that scene without much trouble, and it's quite clear that neither of the women would be described as "Dancer in Club". There's just nothing reliable that supports the claim she appeared in the film; the "special thanks" credit, which may be more verifiable, would indicate she doesn't, because such credits are typically given to people who aren't in the film. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

John J. "Bald Jack" Ryan

Did you read the talk page at all? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Dusti, I did. It's evident that my GSearch skills are better than yours, since I quickly turned up page after page of independent reliable sourcing at GBooks, and, especially since you ignored the search term I pointed out, and instead posted a snarky note on my talk page, I'd be a blithering idiot if I deferred to yours. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Woah! Wait up for just a second here. I was simply asking if you had read the talk page - it was an honest question. From what I saw, it looked like you did the search, found what I found, but didn't see my note on the talk page - since you didn't even acknowledge it. I did a quick google search, and that was it - a quick one. I found the linked article, which I posted on the talk page. My question wasn't snarky - and there's absolutely no reason for you to speak to me in the manner you are. Quite frankly, I'm offended. You're an administrator - if I made a mistake, tell me - instead of acting like a jerk and doing what you just did. Christ. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess there's more than one blithering idiot. At least I'm not alone Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dusti, I was in error. Using HW's search I did turn up the resources that could be used for the article. My new edit was made while you were posting this. Many apologies to you HW for not being more thorough in my first search. MarnetteD|Talk 22:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to be apologetic. We're human, and we all make mistakes - or miss things. All I wanted to know was if HW read my talk page post, which he didn't acknowledge and then insulted me over - for making the same mistake you made. I'm done with this entire situation, and this is my last post. HW - I'm sorry for being a "blithering idiot" and making a mistake. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me?

My edits were incorrect and unneeded? This user is starting many, many articles with 1-2 references ONLY. That is not notable, or reliable, at all. Listing a simple sports database does not give him the right to make little details about the person's life, UNLESS all the info is listed in the database. I am following the notability guidelines. Just because this user is your friend and makes it biased, doesn't mean you can attack new editors. Ban me as you wish, but I will contact another admin for abusing your administrative powers. WikiPassionate (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior was atrocious. You put "unreferenced" tags on articles containing references and threatened to harass the content creator who quite properly removed them. The articles in question were adequately referenced biographical stubs, and your tagging was senseless and inaccurate. I suggest you review WP:BOOMERANG before inveighing further, and remember Yeats' comment about passionate intensity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sebastian Osumanu

I have my doubts - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Osumanu. One badly-written press release appears in 4 incarnations (including a Wordpress doc by author "Fariye Gogman" where the creating editor is "Fariye"), no other evidence of existence of this prize. Hmmm. PamD 21:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You may well be right. I spotted this page [10], which qualifies as an RS under ordinary circumstances. But on close examination I'd bet he's hornswoggled his alma mater, too. I can't tell if this is a complete fake or young guy who won a scholarship/fellowship and is blowing his own horn much too hard about it, but he sure doesn't look notable. Thanks for the heads-up. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cornelius Moriarty

The article Cornelius Moriarty has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

tagged for multiple issues but there needs to be a deadline for supplying references

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Deb (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry HW, I can't come up with anything for this person, and that one link offers nothing more. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Saturday Night Live cast members

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. However whatever (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• HW, it's not worth fighting over. However whatever, the ball is in your court, given WP:BRD, since your initial edit was reverted by HW. I'm going to undo your change since you shouldn't have an unfair advantage, and you may take it up on the talk page. Two things: first, the NY Daily News is a bit of a tabloid and you probably need something stronger than that to convince others; second, please don't revert again, or Sergio might come and curse you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Opened up a discussion at talk:Saturday Night Live cast members, where, thanks to your feedback on the "taboidness" of the New York Daily News, I put different references that meet WP:RS. Feel free to chime in. However whatever (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I don't have much of an opinion, really--I have less of a problem with the "Curse" title than does HW, I think, but at the same time I couldn't quickly find great sources for the phrase. Thanks for starting the discussion. Ball's in your court now, HW! Drmies (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know...

...if you would like the last edit by Dkendr rev-deleted from your talk page history.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Peter Facinelli

Hi Hulla, I was wondering about this edit, do you consider this to be a current source? Also this on her verified Facebook? I saw no reason to remove it in the first place but wanted to come here first :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• Current, yes. Sufficiently reliable, no. The Facebook page is a vague statement of affection; my sister-in-law (one of them) posts things like that to friends/relatives regularly). The other one is standard celebrity journalism that passes along a rumor, purports to debunk it, and really never asserts anything factual about the underlying situation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Also, you would consider archiving your talk page? It took me DAYS to scroll down ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Molly Ringwald, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Hughes, For Keeps and The Pick-up Artist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Avril (singer)

I am going to be reverting your edit because the information is backed by reliable sources. I am only going to remove the mention of Diamond Platnumz because they didn't end up dating. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Those sources fail BLP/RS. And any discussion of a celebrity "scandal" with weasel words and "allegedly" generally is removed on sight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I know all about the three revert rule and I won't be putting myself in harm's way. There's nothing wrong with what I added. Avril said in this interview that she is dating a South African guy. The controversial images I spoke of actually exist. I made a mistake by adding the word allegedly. The information was not contrived. The reference I cited discussed it. She also addressed the photo controversial in this interview. Watch the interview. Versace1608 (Talk) 21:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for your response. If I do not hear from you, I will be taking this to the edit dispute noticeboard. Like I said, nothing is wrong with the content I added. The images of Avril which sparked mixed reactions is available online just like there is a video of the Solange/Jay Z incident. If the images didn't exist and didn't received media coverage, I wouldn't have added it to the page. You removing the personal life section only translates to censorship. Versace1608 (Talk) 22:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve this with you, but you're ignoring me. I don't expect this from an experience user like yourself. Anyways, enough of my rants. Expect a tag on your talk page either by tonight or tomorrow. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lest you forgot...

An AFD is NOT article space and so falls under WP:BLPTALK. I was not making ANY contentious or libelous claim toward a name, simply offering it for review so its use in the BLP itself (as oversighted and removed there and elsewhere by you) could be determined if verifiable or sourcable, or not. That specific section at WP:BLPTALK reads "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate". My offering a diligent and reasonable search was directly related to determining content choices, as directed BY BLP policy. That said, and not wishing to any debate with you over policy, I have removed my "delete" vote and redacted my participation there entirely. You are welcome to oversight and redact my pointing to policy here after reading this note. Good bye and good day. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Versace1608 (Talk) 15:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The dispute rez section in question is here. Your participation is welcomed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Derek White (writer)

Greetings Hullaballoo! I noticed that you restored this page. I'm wondering why. The page had a single line of text when I put it up for Speedy Deletion. Furthermore, on that page's Talk Page, the subject, Derek White, spoke up about the page asking for it to be deleted. He freely admitted that he was not notable and that he didn't want the article. There are also no primary sources for the article. Can you please clarify why this wouldn't just be deleted? What is worth holding onto if the subject of the article is telling someone to delete it? Kobuu (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Because an unverified request from an IP claiming to be the article subject isn't ground for speedy deletion, nor is the IP's inappropriate content removal. Given that the Calamari Press page, controlled by the subject, links to an interview declaring the subject lives in NYC, it's even harder than usual to take the IP at face value, too. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Hullaballoo for getting back to me. I appreciate it. Your answer makes sense and the restored version has at least some content. It needs a lot of work but I see your point. Thanks! Kobuu (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Have a nice day, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• You're such a liar, Chris. You reverted twice today, once quite obviously spuriously, moi only once, and you post a warning on my talk page. But what should anyone expect from the troll who less than two weeks ago posted a completely false accusation that I was hounding him by changing all the pages he'd recently edited, even though his list was more than half pages he hadn't edited recently, and one-third pages he'd never edited at all! Or from the guy who in an AFD pushed phony charges of racism about me, which two admins characterized as bad faith. It's barely a month since you picked up a topic ban at AE. This kind of disruptive behavior isn't going to end well for you this time, either. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Observatory Discography Cover Art

I refer to your taking down of cover art for The Observatory. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Meeting_the_contextual_significance_criterion, non-free content can in fact be used for identification purposes. "For example, to allow identification of music albums, books, etc., only an image of the front cover art of the object is normally used." Will revert your edit unless you reply satisfactorily. Adsfghj (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)adsfghj

Read what I posted to your talk page yesterday. The same page you quote says explicitly that nonfree images are unacceptable in discographies (as opposed to album-specific articles). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

August, 2014 — personal attacks, incivility

Please remove this personal attack immediately.[11] It reads as follows. Frankly, you're doing more a more than adequate job of sullying your fake name all by yourself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC). I also object to your calling me dishonest and incompetent, particularly in a serious discussion on the BLP policy talk page, and ask you to remove that as well.[12] I see you're also calling other editors dishonest, lying, accusing them of trolling, etc.[13][14] I do not wish to caution you again, please cut it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No. The first is poking fun at a pompous attempt at derision you directed at another user; if it's OK for you to say it, you shouldn't complain about it being turned back on you. If you don't want your honesty and competence questioned, don't deliberately misrepresent other users' positions, and don't falsely accuse people of things they haven't done, like your entirely made up "childish name calling" accusation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. When I ask you to stop calling me incompetent and dishonest you are refusing to do so? Yes, I did say that is resorting to childish name calling. That's a new low. Sheesh. Okay, I'm on record of asking you to stop and you are on record of refusing to stop. Acknowledged. I may ask for some guidance on how I'm supposed to respond. Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: You deliberately make false accusations against other users and complain that your targets say you are making false accusations. Let me suggest the best way to respond: stop making false accusations, and retract the ones you have made! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• Let me go further. If anyone thinks my questioning of Wikidemon's WP:COMPETENCE is unfounded, I refer you to this edit [15], where Wikidemon cites a Google Books search result to support the claim that a particular living person has been a "bondage model". Here is the citation Wikidemon provided: [16]. That citation is particularly curious, because it doesn't show the underlying text, even though it is available. This one does, however: [17]. When you examine what the source actually says, you see that, on three separate pages in the book (an alphabetical collection of short descriptions/summaries of many porn releases, the source identifies one Careena Collins as a cast member for one film, and notes that an entirely different film (in which Collins does not appear) depicts bondage scenes or bondage models. At best it is evident that Wikidemon did not even look at the source to see what it actually said. (It's also worth noting that the search string Wikidemon used would have hit on "Careena Collins is not a bondage model; her Wikipedia article is wrong", which underlines the importance of verifying what a source says rather than relying on search hits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is any statement you would care for me to retract, or any place you believe I have misrepresented your statements or edits, please feel free to point that out. I will do my best not to misspeak or be unfair. Meanwhile, I would certainly appreciate your removing those insults. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you're doubling down on your personal attacks, above, rather than trying to reflect on them. My offer stands. Otherwise, I am disengaging from you as much as I can, and ask you to do the same. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Erika Lust

If Erika Lust is not on your watch list, could you add it? There have been some changes which I believe are COI changes made in the last few days. I have been the only one reverting the article and I'd like some more eyes on it. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 12:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexia Umansky

Can you add a "normal" deletion process tag then please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I haven't done the work necessary to comply with WP:BEFORE, and am not interested in slogging through the coverage of the awful TV show and whatever else might turn up. There's other work I'd rather do here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Lars Mortimer) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lars Mortimer, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz!

Wikipedia editor SantiLak just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add stub tag but besides that, great article

To reply, leave a comment on SantiLak's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Alluding to sockness

Hello, to keep this point separate and distinct from the commentary on Talk:Kevin Sorbo, if you think someone is a sock, then please place a request for investigation (along with your evidence) at WP:SPI. You might be right about the IP postings, but on the other hand, you might not. Your Argument from ignorance approach is a logical fallacy and proves nothing. If you have evidence of him being a sock, please follow the proper procedures instead of just accusing them or asking other editors to prove a negative. If he is a sock, he should be dealt with accordingly. If he's not, he needs to be given the assumption of good faith. If you have anything to say in reply, post it here and I'll review. Thank you. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 18:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Spare me any more of the psychobabble and self-righteous cant. If you think there is anything inappropriate about noting the likelihood of sockpuppetry when an IP with a handful of edit, virtually all vandalism and BLP violations, abruptly displays the competence required to open an RfC, you are seriously misguided. I have no interest in pursuing this discussion here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Prisoner (novel) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Prisoner (novel) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prisoner (novel) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ollieinc (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page

Hi Hullaballoo—your talk page is rather large to the point of being ridiculous. You can set up a bot to archive your talk page - I use Miszabot. To use this, add the code below to the top of this page. Ollieinc (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo    = old(31d)<!--Set this to how old you want a thread to be before it's archived (as of the newest timestamp)-->
| archive = User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s<!--Set this to the page you want the bot to archive the sections to. %(year)d is the year, %(month)d is the month (1–12), %(month)d is the month (January–December), and %(monthnameshort)s is the month (Jan–Dec)-->
| archiveheader = {{Talk archive}}{{User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archives}}
}}
{{AutoArchivingNotice|small=yes|age=31<!--Set this to how many days you want a thread to be before it's archived (as of the newest timestamp)-->|index=./Archive index|bot=MiszaBot III}}