Revision as of 13:06, 7 October 2009 editHullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers96,059 edits →Harvey Weinstein: rvv← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:32, 9 January 2023 edit undoBD2412 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators2,459,524 editsm BD2412 moved page User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 13 to User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12 without leaving a redirect: correction | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== |
== Notice == | ||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ]'' <small><sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub></small> 14:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
] to ], {{PAGENAME}}! I'm ]. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Misplaced Pages can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we ] so ''']''' and get what you know down in ]s! If you do make a mistake, ] and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started: | |||
== Regarding ] == | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
Hello. I have declined your speedy deletion request at ]. The problem is that ] covers unreferenced articles only. Our speedy deletion criteria also say "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum." | |||
There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, <u>feel free</u> to leave me a message on my ] or add {{tl|helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to ] using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;) | |||
I suggest you create an ] for this article and present your evidence that it is a hoax. Thank you. ] 17:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
I hope you enjoy contributing to Misplaced Pages. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! —]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Miss Grand International == | |||
*] | |||
It should be a good idea when you check the first version of this cut and paste thingy, created after a refused undeletion request: <span style="border:1px solid green; padding:0 2px">] ]</span> 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== RE: Speedy deletions == | |||
:I don't care what the page looked like eight months ago. When you tagged it for deletion this morning, it wasn't substantially identical to the deleted version, and therefore wasn't subject to speedy deletion as a repost of a deleted article. ] (]) 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
I'm sorry, but a speedy deletion is a speedy deletion. ] is very clear in this regard. These articles do not fit these criteria, so please try ] or ] instead. Thanks and regards, —]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Case Opened: Banning Policy== | |||
Also, please read the Talk pages of articles before nominating them for AfD or trying to Speedy them. The ] article was previously nominated for deletion and the result was "keep".<font color="FF6600">—</font>] ] 12:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Jade Cole== | |||
:Please take more care in avoiding ] or comments that may be seen as uncivil. I read the discussion page. The nomination you refer to is over a year old. The policy underlying my deletion proposal took effect only a few months ago. Even without the new policy rules, there is nothing wrong with a new deletion proposal more than a year after an earlier one. Especially when the reason is completely different. ] 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your recent prod removal on ]. Might you have any way to delete the redirect that ends up on the ] article when people type in ‘Jade Cole’? I feel at this point it should go to her article, and then the (model) on her name can be dropped. There’s only one person on Misplaced Pages with that name. Thank you so much if that’s something you know how to do; I don’t. --] (]) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I'm sorry that you found my comment to appear uncivil. It was not meant to be so.<font color="FF6600">—</font>] ] 20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Linking, Not Spamming == | |||
==Unbias== | |||
I noticed that an editor by the name of Hoary is very bais when it comes to deleting photographers from the fashion photography section. | |||
Just recently I added a photographer the shoots for Vogue Magazine and also has won very prestigious awards... all this information is verifiable, and referecnced. | |||
I am writing you because I see that you have stood upto this person, in the Luke Duval AFD section. Another, much more established photographer named Seth Sabal | |||
has been deleted by Hoary and this photographer, shoots for shot for Vogue; and won the same award as Luke Duval the photographer you protected from deletion. | |||
Can you please help me. Thank you Sarah ] (]) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
I'm trying to add links with more information about some films and you keep deleting them. Please stop. ] (]) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Cashiers | |||
:No. Your only edits in about two years are rapid-fire addition of links to the same non-notable podcast. I'm not the only editor who's removed one of your links. It's evident that your purpose is promotion of the podcast. If you continue, the links will again be removed and your editing privileges are likely to be suspended. ] (]) 16:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I was googling and found that you have quite a reputation of being a bit prickly. This seems to be in keeping with your personality and tactics. I won't ask you to stop being a jerk because I think that's just your nature. ] (]) 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Cashiers | |||
==Removal of images== | |||
Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with ], ], ], and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under ]. ] 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Rebecca Bardoux == | |||
:Please review ] and the policy described in the copyright tag for those images more carefully. As my edit summaries accurately quoted, "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image." In each case you cited, the article use did not conform to this requirement. ] 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hello Hullabalo can you please explain where you are getting you information about Rebecca Bardoux in regards to "unsupported by cited source; one performance does not demonstrate an occupation." Thank you Mosmos69 | |||
::Please review ] and note that it is in fact a '''guideline''', not a policy. This is clearly stated at the top of the page. ] 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Please don't edit war == | |||
:::Please review ] more carefully. The template you mention refers only to sections 1-4 of the page. Sections 5-8 are formal Misplaced Pages policy. They are labelled as formal policy by the template preceding section 5. ] 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Please do not edit war as you did . Please follow ]. Also, ] can hardly be called "cold".- ]] 17:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::...and I believe the section you are citing as the reason for removing images is not in the section marked as "policy". | |||
::::Incidentally, since you seem to be quite a stickler for policy and such, please note the following from ]: ''Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive.'' ] 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Removing speedy == | ||
Ok before you start yelling at me, I do think you're right, I think I may have been confused. Does the speedy refer to socks? Since they can't edit after being banned/blocked, then they'd have to create another user to do the editing and then in comes the speedy request? Yes? Because in that case then I've been right in the past but since Fairyspit was the sockpuppet he wasn't blocked until later and doesn't qualify. Yes?<small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 20:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hi there! I was wondering why you made . Gallagher's drug-use in his early days is pretty widely documented – he's even had a few laughs about it during interviews. And the fact that he ripped off "Get It On" is also pretty well-known, although I agree that may have been written in a slightly POV way. But do you think that we should just remove his recreational habits from the article? I wouldn't want to start an edit war, so I just thought I'd see what you think. ] states that if an allegiation is notable, verifiable and important to the article, it should not be removed. And personally, I think Gallagher using drugs was one of the best things to happen to British music – without it, Oasis would have just been some shoddy garage band :) But that's just me! Well, please let me know your thoughts. Happy editing, <small>— ] • ] • ] • <font color="green">]</font> • ] • 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:Under the "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material" paragraph of ], statements like these are to be removed immediately if they are not properly sourced. Claims of plagiarism and illegal drug abuse are clearly "negative material." If they are well-documented, just find reliable sources and add the material back, citing those sources. Make sure that what the article says on these matters matches what the source says. No disagreement about content, just about sourcing -- statements like these now must be verified, not just verifiable. ] 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for that, I've left a message with the editor who added all that information initially; I'm sure he'll take care of it. :) Ta, <small>— ] • ] • ] • <font color="green">]</font> • ] • 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
:That's basically it. G5 doesn't apply to articles created before the block/ban is imposed. I posted a longer explanation on your talk page before I saw your post here. ] (]) 20:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Copyright == | |||
== The Chronicles of Prydain == | |||
Regarding your comments at ], I've forwarded the email to the PR dept giving permission for the image. ]] 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
Hi. What is your criterion for restoring articles on Prydain fictional elements--that is, I understand, restoring articles rather than redirects as the targets of navbox {{tl|The Chronicles of Prydain}}. Has there been any related discussion? | |||
==Chessie Moore== | |||
I remarked two weeks ago ], thought I might do more about it but didn't, and updated today mentioning you. Thanks. --] (]) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Would have been easy to check that I wasn't libelling her. She freely admits to it on her (already linked) bio/FAQ on her site. So please don't pull out the WP:BLP too quickly. Cheers. ] 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
:For the ''Prydain''-related material, it's pretty much as I come across it. Alexander may be the most-written-about American fantasy author of the "modern" period who predates the Tolkien boom, and the immense amount of scholarly writing that's indexed online demonstrates that the content suppression described as redirects and merges was grossly inappropriate. A fair amount of the commentary (purely "scholarly" and otherwise) addresses the relationships between Alexander's work and Celtic mythology, particularly the ''mabinogi'', with discussion of individual characters, so I'm confident that the elimination of the character articles was clearly wrong. (In practice, it also violated the ban on "fait accompli" editing in the relevant Arbcomm case, but I'm restoring articles in careful stages to avoid similar complaints.) The editor responsible also targeted article related to Shakespeare, Orwell, Heinlein, Carroll, LeGuin and George R.R. Martin, so it's pretty clear this is POINTy disruption. Pruning gamecruft is one thing, but going out of his way to gut coverage of writers with massive critical coverage is quite another. ] (]) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
WP:BLP says that if comments like that aren't sourced, delete immediately. Hard to see how I could act "too quickly". Please explain. ] 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Thanks. Only one now remains a redirect ({{c|Prydain character redirects to lists}}). When you "restore" (that is your ] edit summary), do you literally mark in the Revision history () a span of latest edits back to the version to be restored, and select "undo"? | |||
:Nah, its okay. I was mainly referring to the fact that the link I gave as a source was already on the page! Though I can understand that with such fetishes, people might be rather restrictive... ] 07:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Oops, I'm two minutes past my witching hour. Good night. --] (]) 00:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
== Request == | |||
] | |||
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about ]. | |||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] ]] 12:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
I am not familiar with the credit card / porn star identity incident you mentioned in AnonEMouse's RFA, but I would like to take a closer look at it. Could you provide some more direct diffs related to Mouse's involvment? ] 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== ANI == | |||
: Thanks, I provided extensive links and discussion on that page, ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. --] - Just your ] banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ] ☮ღ☺ 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== "a couple followup questions" == | |||
== Confused == | |||
You were very civil, and raised appropriate points. I could hardly do less than respond, briefly at first, then in more detail when JoshuaZ asked. I can't wait for the questions! :-) ] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Did you mean to accept from IP 119.154.13.20? The edits reintroduced the same unsourced BLP-violating material I added the protection to prevent, including flip-flopping DOB and unsupported religious affiliation. I'm assuming it was a misclick, as that's out of character of you. --]] 22:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] Opposition ... Thanks == | |||
:Did I mean to? Yes/ Was it the right call? Apparently not. I'm so used to dealing with horrid BLP violations in South Asian celebrity BLPs that I let a less obvious one go right by me. Sorry about that. ] (]) 01:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Pakistani actor articles are being bombarded with a wave of promotional sock/meat edits (which I'm fairly convinced come from a paid editing ring). Given the endless rapid-cycling IP ranges and ISPs available in the region blocking is toothless, so semi-protection is the only way to limit the disruption. The BLP issues aren't as egregious as some cases, but the marketing group is unrelenting in their attempts to insert the contested DOBs, religion and puffery in the articles. --]] 17:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for September 12== | |||
<div style="padding: 5px; background: #AAFFF8; border-style: groove; border-width: 10px; border-color: #003153; -moz-border-radius: 25px; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 100%; "> | |||
<center><big><big><big>'''''Thank You'''''</big></big></big><br> </center> | |||
<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none; font-size: 100%;"> | |||
<div class="NavFrame" style="padding: 0px; border-style: none;"> | |||
<div class="NavHead" style="background: #AAFFF8; text-align: right;"><small>''(Open your card)''</small> → → → </div> | |||
<div class="NavContent" style="display: none; text-align: center;"> | |||
<div style="margin-top: 5px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 120px; background: #ffffff; border:1px solid #8888aa; float: left;">]</div> | |||
Harmonica, Hullaballoo ... (I still think it should have been Peterandthe Wolfowitz) ..., thank you for your civility and reasonableness in your opposition. I can't pretend I wouldn't have preferred you support, but if I had to have opposition, I'm glad it was as reasoned, well thought out and argued as yours. You were amazed the discussion was so civil - well, you made it civil. And for that, I thank you. | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
As you suspected it would, my ] has ended, successfully. And your words there had a lot of impact on me. I would appreciate the chance to show you that you were wrong in your opposition. I expect we will continue to disagree on content issues, but that is all right - it takes views to make this a successful encyclopedia, as long as they are well intentioned and civil they will be appreciated. If there is any admin thing I can do to make your life easier, please ask, and I will do as best I can. | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Otherwise I will try to start the admin thing slowly, and not delete the Main Page for at least five minutes. If I mess up, make sure to come to my talk page and give me a good yell. Email also works, and is more private, but talk page will often get a more immediate response. If even that doesn't work, I am, of course, in ], though I would hope you give the yell route a try first. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
==] nomination of ]== | |||
] | |||
A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason: | |||
<small><small>Design from ], which amazed me when I got it. ].</small></small> | |||
</div></div></div></div> | |||
<center>''Redirect to a page that doesn't exist or has been deleted''</center> | |||
== CalendarWatcher's reversion == | |||
Just to note, CalendarWatcher reverted you here . I agree with you that the merge should be done with a little more effort put into it as to what's necessary and what's not by some users familiar with the topic. I didn't understand his reasoning that 'nothing is stopping you' while merging the article making that impossible. It just sounded abrasive. I know a little about the show myself so I could possibly step in if need be, but as you said, it shouldn't be merged yet. Cheers! ] (]) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Under the ], articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time. | |||
I might also like to note that this editor is running on a second chance granted by an admin in which he really should be blocked right now for recent violation of the 3RR, as shown here . His editing practices are not improving and you are not the only user he has shown uncivil editing habits with as shown here and here . Given that he should be blocked for violation of 3RR, an admin should most definitely be contacted if he engages in edit warring or violates the 3RR again. Cheers! ] (]) 10:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-reason-notice --> ''']''' 09:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
==User:Calton and sockpuppetry== | |||
If you blank content on ] again, I will block you for disruptive editing. I've already blocked your IP once, so I suggest you stop. - ] ] 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Poudar == | |||
:With , I believe you were in error. The user in question was engaging in perfectly appropriate blanking of a serious BLP violation. To call someone a "spammer" is a very serious personal attack, remember WP:NPA, and he was using a (misspelling) of the real name of a known critic. The block in this case should have been handed out to ] for violatio of policy, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz could possibly have been thanked for right action.--] (]) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
. If you are an admin then check the history of that and of articles created by, for example, {{user|Buddhakahika}} and their socks. If quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck and, believe me, I know these ducks. In fact, the only reason that the article has not been subjected to a create-protect is because it acts as a honeypot. Please can you review the SPI archive. - ] (]) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Dave Simons DRV == | |||
== RfC: Rebecca Bardoux == | |||
In relation to this edit , DRV is generally only for admins since they're the ones who can see the full text of the deletion pages. That being said, do you have a link for the cahce of the full text of the deleted article? I'd like to see it and offer help, if I can. Thanks! ] (]) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:First of all, nothing I see in the deletion policy page on deletion review backs up your claim. Any editor may participate in deletion review. Often the deleted text is not as important as the deletion discusssion which remains for all editors to see. Deletion review is a discussion about the appropriateness of deletion discussion outcomes. I have read many discussions in which normal editors participated. Second, the google cache has now disappeared. But the same content can be found here. ]. Showing that the editor who created the article was actively trying to improve it. It is extremely similar to the text I posted. I do not understand why you think that text was not sufficient. ] (]) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I said nothing of the sort about the page, I was only asking if it was anywhere where I could take a full look at it. It stands to reason that if only admins can see the content, then only admins would be qualified to figure out whether it should have been deleted in the first place. If that snippet from wikirage is all that exists, there don't seem to be any reliable sources. ] (]) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::But lack of reliable sources for an article in the process of being written is not grounds for speedy deletion! ] (]) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::I can't see the full article so I can't comment on this specific one, but yes, yes they can. The mainspace is not the place to write an unsourced article, as I've tried to explain to the author of this piece. ] (]) 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::Sourcing issues aren't grounds for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion policy, even for BLPs. And certainly not for articles that were being written when the speedy was placed. ] (]) 21:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
(OD)Without proper sourcing, the subject wasn't notable. I've tried to be as helpful as I can to the author, but if you upload an unfinished, unsourced article to the mainspace, it's probably going to come back down pretty quickly. ] (]) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi, notifying all previous talk participants of an RfC: ] -- ]] 13:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Block == | |||
== Christine Shevchenko == | |||
Following on from the discussion and Auburn Pilot's warning a few sections above on this page, I see that you have continued to disruptively edit ] whilst logged out. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours. I will post the standard block template, which contains details of how to request an unblock, below. <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:48 hours|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours'''|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:disruptive editing|'''disruptive editing'''|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:|<sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> <sub>]</sub><sup>]/]</sup> 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
This sounds silly BUT if I only replace the article text then it won't count towards articles I have created, it'll just look like the article was already there and I added to the text...so...yea lol <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{unblock reviewed|1=I did not make the edit I am accused of making. I am obviously not the editor who did so. I am in North America, from a school/library network. As I asked last week, this can easily be checked out as true The banned editor I am for no good reason accused of being is described as being in the Czech Republic, and the IPs involved are traced there by the "GEOLOCATE" function on the contributions page. The accusations were made in a discussion I started. But after I had logged out because the library was closing. The discussion was closed before I could respond. And there was no evidence presented at all. If you examine the edit histories there is no resemblance between what I do and what the user I am accused of being does. Even the administrator who began accusing me of being a sockpuppet (without saying whose) now says on his talk page "I have no idea if you are related to the old sockpuppet accounts mentioned." I also want to say that the disputed edit was not improper. It is the kind of deletion that the Arbitration Committee called for with regard to BLP violations on userpages. No one has seriously claimed that the material I deleted did not have BLP violations in it. I will post more from the Arbcom decisions but I have to research them a little. If this is not good enough then I ask to be unblocked so I can take this to Arbitration since I was just following Arbcom guidelines ! ] (]) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)|decline=While checkuser confirms that aspect of your unblock request, the blocking admin makes that your behavior has been nonetheless disruptive. — ] <sup>]</sup> 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
== Speedy removal of ] == | |||
Given that ] confirms that aspect of your claim, I've asked the blocking editor to comment here on whether that was the sole basis for the block. — ] <sup>]</sup> 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I confirm Coren's findings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is {{unrelated}} to the IP. <span style="background:white;color:#007FFF;font-family:Georgia;">] </span><sub>(])</sub> 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
While this was taken to AfD, it strikes me that your declining the speedy on grounds of "creative works not eligible" is dead wrong. Try ], which '''specifically''' refers to musical recordings. I'd refresh my recollection of CSD, in your shoes. ] 04:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
{{tl|unblock}} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Misplaced Pages discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Misplaced Pages policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do. | |||
:It was nominated under A7, and creative works are expressly excluded from A7. It strikes me that the subject was ineligible for A9, because it's a series of releases, not an individual recording; and because the compilations include tracks from notable artists. (A9 doesn't appropriately address compilation albums anyway). Plus there's coverage out there, some of the albums have charted on ], ] does a lot of notable archival work and I think there are enough legitimate GNG issues to warrant a discussion. Yes, the article is lousy, as it stands, but it's the first article from an inexperienced user, speedied 11 minutes after creation, and that's bad pracxtice, too. ] (]) 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Jimmy Wales link | |||
::* User was blocked at 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC) for 48 hours. It is now more than 48 hours later. — ] ] 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
:You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name.—] (]) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Not a question of notability - straw man argument of yours. I will not restore an attack page - ask some other admin, but restoration restores all the history including the attack which would be a ] violation but who knows some admin would probably ignore BLP for you - Not I. If you want an article about the guy, please write one fully sourced and not an attack page. ] (]) 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::This request is a little ] for my taste, but I should note that it appears he is stating that the situation is "Kafkaesque" as in "reminiscent of the writings of ]" (see .) I don't think he's admitting at ALL to being another user. However, I find his unblock request above to be somewhat ironically Kafkaesque in its own way. --].].] 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Orphaned non-free image File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg== | |||
:::Ah, I see. Wouldn't recognize the term, no fan of Kafka, much too verbose.—] (]) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
<span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
:::So lets recap? Blocked for being a sock, shown to be completely and utterly false. Then the block reason was "oh because of that" something that wasn't part of the initial block... but hey he was blocked so he's GOTTA have a reason somewhere... lets look closely... add to that some hmmm how do you put it politely "not all that well read" admin makes a multiple sock offender out of it... quite funny. This bit made my day :) Oh and Kafka is not exactly a verbose writer ;) brilliant yes, verbose... not exactly the 1st thing that comes to mind. ] (]) 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Of course, the part of your recap that you missed is that this user has been unblocked for three weeks at this point... --].].] 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ] (]) 19:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Arbcom case as mentioned == | |||
== Mass redirects and deletion of content by TTN == | |||
From ] | |||
You apparently have spent a lot of time and effort dealing with the mass redirect and deletion efforts of ]. I had to track back when I discovered that apparently got reverted. But you did not go back. Why? Is this legit or did you just not notice it? Looking at this guys's history, I see a couple thousand such moves, not all of them reverted. You are much better up to speed on this; Should all of these get reverted? If so, we should ask a Bot be created. Otherwise it seems like an effort requiring a team of users to go back and analyze each edit. ] (]) 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users". | |||
:That one just got by me; I've fixed it now, thanks. TTN's edits, unfortunately, need to be reviewed rather than bulk-reverted. Some really weren't controversial (overdetailed coverage of RPG elements); some dubious (TV episode removal targeting high-profile creators, particularly George RR Martin; some clearly atrocious (coverage of literature where extensive coverage/criticism exists, including at one point Shakespeare). TTN also quite often didn't follow WP:BEFORE, sometimes never even checking the articles he redirected (most flagrantly, as I recall, redirecting a business to a list of Transformers characters because they shared a fairly common name; and redirecting a noteworthy, award-winning sf novella to a TV series which adapted it years later.) There were at least two Arbcom cases, lots of edit wars, and lots of controversy. I've been trying to work my way down from the most inappropriate edits until there's serious debate, starting with the literature-related ones, the mistargeted ones (remarkably frequent), and the boilerplate nothing-but-plot rationales that didn't match the articles. Arbcom quite prudently established a "fait accompli" rule to prohibit undiscussed mass edits made faster than they can be intelligently reviewed, and I'm not going to push that limit in cleaning up the mess, even though TTN did in creating it. Hope that's helpful. ] (]) 22:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Please direct me to that rule. I've run into mass editors of several different colors. I know they could not possibly be giving due consideration to their edits and that would give me a legitimate policy to stop them, by ARB force if necessary. On WP I feel like I have to be a lawyer to keep up on policy for all this crap other irresponsible editors pull. BTW, I noticed TTN suddenly stopped in early August. Was he stopped or did he just suddenly come to his senses? ] (]) 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::The principle is here: ]. It was established in this ArbCom case where, not coincidentally, sanctions were levied on TTN. My impression is that lately TTN stops editing once other editors notice what he's doing and object, then returns weeks or months later in hopes of flying beneath the radar. ] (]) 00:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Black pied cattle == | |||
6.6 The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki). | |||
Hallo, | |||
] (]) 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
because of ''invalid speedy argument'' you request an RFD for the redirects ], ] and ]. How do I have to do that? What argument shall I present you? | |||
From request for clarification of the same case, arbitrators statements that directing such comments at specific people crosses the line: | |||
These three are no reasonable redirects to the ]. That came to exist because of '']'', ''Use natural disambiguation not parentheticals when possible, per WP:AT policy (and per article's only source)'' and ''same capitalization scheme as the other articles in this category''-arguments. All without any reference, that these are proper names for the ]. I nearly unknown breed in the English World. | |||
My analysis is that the statement in context would definitely be read as Bedford's own opinion put into a crassly extreme form, but that no-one would seriously read it as a literal statement. It is borderline but I would incline to the view that we cannot insist on its removal. This is partly because, in applying the complained-of remarks generally without naming the users, it is difficult to read it as personally insulting. Users unfamiliar with the dispute, intrigued by the use of such a forceful description, are far more likely to hold it against Bedford especially if they investigate the circumstances. I think in his best interests he should rephrase his remarks, but I strongly suspect that it is his own reputation that will suffer if he choses not to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...I agree with Brad and Sam. While Bedford's comment is highly distasteful to many in the community, it is not directed at anyone specific and is in his own user space. If it were a directed comment, I support removing it. As it is, it's primary negative affect is to the person that wrote it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
There are no redirects for ], ], ]. If you are asking for black pied cattle breeds, here are some, the list may not be complete. These are only the breeds with a "Black Pied"-name... | |||
That is just last month! | |||
Ural Black Pied cattle | |||
From the similar request for comment on Law Lord: | |||
Aosta Black Pied cattle | |||
Swiss Black Pied cattle | |||
Baltic Black Pied cattle | |||
Breton Black Pied cattle | |||
German Black Pied cattle | |||
Russian Black Pied cattle | |||
Beijing Black Pied cattle | |||
Siberian Black Pied cattle | |||
Estonian Black Pied cattle | |||
German Black Pied Dairy cattle | |||
Central Russian Black Pied cattle | |||
Belgian Black Pied Holstein cattle | |||
Czech Pied cattle | |||
Hungarian Pied cattle | |||
Slovakian Pied cattle | |||
Thanks for your help. --] (]) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Outside view by Fred Bauder | |||
Discourtesy is an increasing problem on Misplaced Pages. Lack of courtesy has driven a number of editors away from Misplaced Pages. An assertion by an editor who has departed that the reason they left was lack of courtesy is acceptable. A personal attack would involve not only identifying the person, but an attack that is personal, not merely an assertion that Misplaced Pages policy was not followed. We should not create a situation where not only is the policy violation tolerated, but even mention of it is forbidden. | |||
:I'm sorry if the above seems a bit abrupt. I am currently a bit touchy about some breed moves. --] (]) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Users who endorse this summary: | |||
::I can delete them as inappropriate redirects if there is nothing linked to them. Is that really what is wanted? ] (]) 08:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Fred Talk 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
++Lar: t/c 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
This is really not problematic at all, and removing and protecting the user page(!) to remove that sentence is just plain absurd. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Davewild (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
MikeHobday (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
--NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Cheers dude (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Agree with Conti. لennavecia 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
The best defense again libel/slander is the truth. Are there rude admins? Yes. Are there abusive admins? Yes. Are there admins who should lose the bit? Hell yes. Is it possible that Law Lord is in fact tired of dealing with them? Yes. Case closed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Ray (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
--Smashvilletalk 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
SIS 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
—Locke Cole • t • c 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|Deb}} Yes, that is, what I am asking for. There are only 4 WP-links to ]. I was not sure if I am allowed or expected to correct them. --] (]) 09:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::All the links seem to be from talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages rather than articles, so I don't know that it is worth changing them. ] (]) 12:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{ping|Deb}} My sense has been that there's some sort of a content dispute underlying this, which is why I suggested going to RFD when I declined the initial speedies. ] (]) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yes, you are right. ] (]) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:There is no content dispute. --] (]) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Jimbo == | |||
:And if: there is still the question: how to do it (simple)? --] (]) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Removal of permitted logo from User:GeoffreyBH == | |||
You may be pleased to know that Jimmy Wales has made comments of you in relation to your efforts to remove unacceptable comments from Calton's user page and has suggested that the admin who blocked you might want to as an admin (not directly related to your blocking but still related to this matter). Then again you may already know or you may not care. I thought I'd mention it anyway given the bizarre way you were treated over this. ] (]) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
I took care to note exactly why I had permission to use the logo, which had in any case been in common use since before my own period of office. The version you removed waa, in any event, my reconstruction from a monochrome logo. It was completely redrawn. Be all that as it may, simple good manners would have suggested at least contacting me before taking draconian action in pursuit of your personal agenda - whatever that may be. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
You do realize that by starting this ANI with regards to Calton, that you have put yourself squarely in Guy's cross hairs. Be careful, they will now try to spin this so that Calton comes off as the victim here, not the aggressor. I suggest you bring this matter straight to Jimbo. ] (]) 10:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
:{{tps}}Copyright violations are serious, removal notifications are not required, using someone else work, even if modified, without their permission is '''not''' allowed. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">] <small>(])</small></span> 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Anyone who took the trouble to read the tag would know that the use and the re-drawing were permitted in terms. Geoffrey BH 20:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I told you so, they are turning this into "Calton is the victim" and right on cue Guy jumped in. They are also claiming you are the banned Truthcrusader person, of course no one will run a checkuser to verify or disprove it. again, take this to Jimbo. ] (]) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
I would like to resolve this problem so that I may use mt logo without risk of improper deletion. If HW reads this, I would like to read his/her suggestion. Unfortunately, I'm not very sanguine because I read a long account of similar intervention. Misplaced Pages's DR process is attractive but I would like to solve the problem amicably. Geoffrey BH 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Please propose for deletion == | |||
See? With all the BS flying around about Calton claiming you are Truthcrusader, the initial reason WHY you filed the ANI is lost forever. Also lost is the two personal attacks he made a few days ago on two other editors.] (]) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
If you insist, , please propose that template for deletion. It provides a visual summary of all objects in the Solar System that have been imaged up close. This is not possible without that image, and hence that template should else be deleted entirely. --] (]) 13:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Kate Jackson == | |||
:Please note that ]#9 straightforwardly prohibits the use of nonfree images outside articlespace, including use in templates. Non-free content policy also does not make exceptions based on educational-use-only licenses. Using a nonfree file in a template is automatically detected and reported; even if I were to ignore it, another editor would soon repeat the removal. ] (]) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::It is stupid not to make a distinction between images that have no free license at all and those that are free-to-use for educational purposes. But okay, ''you'''re enforcing this without regard to specifics and who makes that template useless, so have the guts to take the next logical step: propose it for deletion! --] (]) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::As I recall, the NFC issue has arisen before w/r/t that template, and the resolution was simply to remove the affected entry, which I've now done. And the WMF makes the distinction you're upset about. ] (]) 13:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::Well, that defeats the purpose of the template: to show ''all'' closely imaged objects. However, this way you gave me an idea how to salvage it: . --] (]) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::What about ]? ] (]) 15:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Please consider archiving == | |||
Hello. With regard to your edits to the ] article, specifically with regard to your removal of the information regarding Jackson's two treatments for cancer, it seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider that the appropriate edit here would not be to remove the uncited material, but to A) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section. | |||
My eyes! ] ]] 00:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to ] "Kate Jackson" "breast cancer" and add the reference yourself. As I read that you do your editing work during time at a library, it would seem a greater degree of source information would be available to you there than the average person, as libraries typically subscribe to paid news sites. Barring this, you should take note of the other information on the page relevant to your edit: the Category:breast cancer survivors page links to the Kate Jackson article, and this is evident from that category's tag in the Jackson article. But what is the value to you or another reader of removing this fact from her biography, and from the list of cancer survivors? | |||
==Belle Knox AFD #2== | |||
Kate Jackson was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and again around 1991. While the first bout was something she kept secret, the second made her decide to make her health publicly known, resulting in her being the subject of a cover story in ''People'' magazine. She also underwent open heart surgery in 1994 after discovering she had been born with an ]. She has been active in spreading awareness of both conditions. Please take an interest in the subjects of your edits; when they are clearly not vandalism, spend at least the same minute or two searching for a source as you would editing the material out. If you don't care enough to do so, the answer is to place a cite tag or to walk away from the article. A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to. ] (]) 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
The second AFD for ] has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. ] (]) | |||
== |
== ] == | ||
Hello. I saw you previously prodded Curtis' article as NN and for having no reliable sources, so I just thought I'd let you know I AfD'd it for basically the same reasons the other day, if you wanted to join in. ] <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
You know, instead of nominating a page for deletion why not help it out? Antonio Biaggi is a noteworthy porn star as he is very popular in the Gay community if you look at his Facebook page he has over 70,000 likes and has been in several porns. Also if you look at the external links section you will see that the page passes GNG as there is no original research needed all information comes from those sources if you look at them and the external links are the same as ] so I do not understand how it has no reliable sources when the sources are in the external links. So can you please remove your propsal? Thanks! ] (]) 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Robert Mihaly == | |||
:Also the fact that it took this long for him to get a page when he owns his own website, Biaggi Videos, has done a lot of pornographic films like Matthew Rush, etc. is astonishing. ] (]) 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Thank you for your contributions to the Robert Mihaly AfD page. I agree with your feedback! | |||
] (]) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Sophie Hunter == | |||
== Your "Strong keep" on girlfriend of aristocrat == | |||
You can contest the speedy but please don't just remove the tag, these Fairyspit socks are a pain in my ass and continue to create articles just to base it around Benedict Cumberbatch. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Hiya Hullaballoo, I read your "Strong Keep" for the Axelsson Living persons bio, and I'd have to disagree. Reading thru the Swedish and German papers, she has no relationship to the Danish royal house but her boyfriend (they aren't engaged) does, distantly. (I do a lot of royalty stuff and it's hard to keep the "pretty princess!" fandom from swamping Wiki.) Her books aren't notable and the stuff that's in those articles is basically fluff that's paid public relations. There are literally thousands of minor German princes populating the country so I can't see why the girlfriend of one of them gets a Wiki page. Most of the supporting documentation is like reading the National Enquirer only with worse errors; for instance, B Bladen has her as non-English speaking although she was born, raised, and educated in the US through high school. Anyway, she looks pretty with makeup and her boyfriend must really like her, but I'm not seeing that as notable. Best to you, ] (]) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== ] == | ||
Hi, can you take the correct action to get this page deleted? I'm unfamiliar with the EN-wiki procedures. We received a complaint at ], ticket number 2014100110006778. (I'm a member of the ES-wiki OTRS team). As far as I can see the claim in the message is accurate and the ] page indeed forms part of a scam. On other Wiki's where I am active, this would be a valid reason for speedy deletion. ] (]) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
The decision to delete the article ] is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you. ] (]) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Hi, please help me in this case rather that ignoring me, while happy reverting. This is not helpful and you are causing scam to remain online. ] (]) 22:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (member of the OTRS team) | |||
:I deleted the article, the evidence looks solid enough to me; if it is not, and someone can fully explain, it will be easy enough to restore.--]] 00:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Speedy deletion of ] and ] == | |||
== Krystle Lina´s article == | |||
I was hoping I could get you to reverse your decision concerning the speedy deletion of these two articles. While it is true that none of the relevant accounts were blocked when these two articles were created, NovaSkola was indefinitely topic banned from editing any thing relating to Azerbaijan and Armenia (except sports articles). Thanks in advance. ] (]) 01:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
I undid to my last edition the article ] because the references has been deleted, and after has been added the deletion quote, but if equal you think the article need more notabillity contact me again --] ([[User | |||
:That's a very valid point, but . . . I wouldn't be surprised if whoever checks the speedy noms next falls into the same trap I fell into, because the G5 templates don't provide any way to indicate a topic ban has been violated, or to cite the ban notice. SOP is pretty much to check the block log and notices, but in this case the log and the final notice didn't mention topic ban violations. Why don't you just AFD them; I expect there'll be a rapid snow close if not a speedy. Meanwhile, I'll draft a proposal to add a topic ban-specific template for G5. Sorry for the inconvenience. ] (]) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
talk:AchedDamiman|talk]]) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
== A suggestion for you == | |||
==Articles Jessicka & Clint Catalyst== | |||
I see that you are frequently at loggerheads with other editors and your page has been vandalized many times. I would suggest some introspection on how you handle this matter of deleting NFC. These are articles which people have worked on long and hard about topics that they are passionate about. When you take unilateral action (even though it was held up by more experienced editors) and treat contributors like children, posting warnings on their page and being generally, in my opinion, a bully when enforcing Misplaced Pages policy, you cannot be surprised that people are rubbed the wrong way. | |||
Hello ]- | |||
I writing in regard to your edits on articles ] & ], specifically with regard to your removal of information. It seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider finding the appropriate reference links rather then just removing entire subjects making the articles less factual. In the future please place a cite tag or leave the article "as is". A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to. | |||
In my case for example, if you had brought it up to the NFC discussion board first, allowed a detailed discussion to take place with consensus, that entire unpleasantness could have been avoided. A little bit of tact goes a long way, especially when dealing with other people's hard work.] (]) 15:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
I am contacting you in good faith and hope that in the future you will follow[REDACTED] policy! | |||
== Jonathan Cheban article == | |||
thanks, | |||
] (]) 18:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Hi Hullaballoo, | |||
Please familiarize yourself with ], ], and ] before criticizing editors who are attempting to enforce those policies. As another user commented on the ] earlier today, a Misplaced Pages article is "not an opportuinty to spam Wiki with everything related to her." ] (]) 21:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
You removed the personal section of the Jonathan Cheban article. | |||
I have stated several times that Jessicka is my wife - examples here: here: & here: | |||
I would like to discuss this. | |||
I do not think this is gossip for several reasons. | |||
1) When does a personal relationship become important in a bio? Is marriage the dividing line? | |||
Understand, I am not being uncivil. I am not debating whether promotional material should be on anybody's[REDACTED] page. Removing links wasn't even your edit. | |||
Or does serious long-term dating count? | |||
See here: | |||
I am fine with the edits made by ], as it is a page about a person and there's no need to link her bands. Please don't deflect. I am stating facts. I am asking you to be a constructive editor rather than a destructive one. I am asking you to consider that the appropriate etiquette here would not be to remove the un-cited material, but to A.) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B.) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section. | |||
2) Cheban's celebrity always brings up the question of his sexuality. Some say he is gay; others say he has a romantic interest in Kardashian. Noting his dating in his personal life is a response to these questions. | |||
If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search . | |||
If you are just there to remove material then it is obvious that you have some sort of with these articles. | |||
3) Cheban made an appearance on celebrity matchmaker, which was written about in reputable news sources. His romantic status then becomes relevant, and thus the reference to his dating life. | |||
As far a ]'s talk page goes please reread what I wrote. and I quote, "If you ever need a third party opinion ( for articles I don't have a COI with) please feel free to hit me up." | |||
I hope we can discuss this further. | |||
I do not know ]. I was being nice. Is being nice to somebody against[REDACTED] policy? I have not made edits on either Jessicka or Clint's pages. | |||
As far as I know ] has not made edits on Jessicka's page. | |||
As far as I know ] does not know my wife or Clint in real life. She said that my wife emailed her - ? Perhaps on Clint's behalf to say thank you? | |||
Thanks, | |||
In closing, I'm not spamming. I am not making edits. The links in question were not added by me. Is there another problem here that I don't know about? I came to you in good faith, if there's some sort of issue - please enlighten me before I involve others. All items that you've removed have NOW been sourced. Rather then look for the source yourself trying to expand the articles in question, you just removed entire sections! How is that constructive? | |||
Robert | |||
] (]) | |||
Addendum: I am going to edit the paragraph to stress the relevance of the Personal Life section. (10-5-14 9:55 PM EST) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I am asking you nicely to please follow[REDACTED] policy. I am still familiarizing myself with[REDACTED] but I can tell when somebody has a clear COI when editing certain articles. | |||
I look forward to resolving this matter quickly, | |||
] (]) 23:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Sophie Hunter (theatre director) == | |||
==Clint_Catalyst.2C_Jessicka.2C_and_COI-implicated_editors_who_refuse_to_abide_by_WP:RS_and_WP:BLP== | |||
Isn't there a speedy delete for a not needed redirect? Because since there is only one Sophie Hunter, no need to have a (theatre director) redirect page, right? <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Regarding your comments made here: | |||
:No. "Not needed" redirects go to ], unless no target for the redirect exists. And redirects resulting from page moves, where incoming links exist, are generally not deleted. ] (]) 19:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for October 19== | |||
"I've been removing flagrantly inappropriate material from a small, interwoven set of articles about very minor-league "celebrities" involved in the LA club scene, mostly associated with buzznet.com." | |||
My wife isn't an internet celebrity - she's a musician and artist. She has no association with buzznet.com. If you have some issue with her legitimacy, might I nicely suggest that you leave editing her[REDACTED] page to user(s) who have no COI and have neutral third party opinions. This reason is why I myself do not edit her page. | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
"Given that Tallulah13 claims to have photographed Catalyst and Jessica together in Germany recently , although all are based in LA, it seems fair to me to suspect they are associated.)" | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
The episode was filmed in LA not Germany. You know what people say about assuming. A little research on certain topics goes a long way. | |||
== Thanks for opening the case == | |||
"A Misplaced Pages article is supposed to be encyclopedic, not an ungodly welding together of a Twitter archive, a set of press clubs, and a shrine to a minor-league celebrity built by his or her friends. The two principal articles involved are Clint Catalyst, where at least two-thirds of the "references" are to sources controlled by the subject or promoting businesses owned by his friends, and Jessicka." | |||
Thanks for opening the case about Molly Ringwald. I was unaware of the larger issue. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
I have no idea what promoting business you are talking about. The end of your ridiculous rant is utter nonsense. I don't appreciate what you are alluding to. I am telling you it's simply not true. | |||
I am coming to you in good faith. If you have some issue with my wife, Clint Catalyst, or anybody whom you assume they are friendly with being legitimate and deserving[REDACTED] pages, might I suggest that the best course of action is for you to allow user(s) who can be 100% neutral, fair, and willing to do research to edit their articles. | |||
== Here is to post 870! == | |||
Please, please, please archive. Some users browsers/internet connection makes this page almost impossible to load. 870 is by far the longest talk page TOC I've seen - '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 15:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Christie Brinkley== | |||
Please, do not post silly things as you did on my talk page. ] (]) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I'm sorry you think complying with ] and ] is silly. Perhaps if you reread them your opinion would change. ] (]) 21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Vanthorn, my advice is just to ignore him. Hullaballoo has a reputation for trolling Wiki articles and deleting absolutely anything and everything that isn't cited to his standards, rather than simply citing it himself, all the while continually invoking various Misplaced Pages policies to defend his agenda and making ] suggestions such as "you need to 'reread' such-and-such policy." This is referred to as "gaming the system" (]), and he is what we call a <i>destructive</i>, rather than <i>constructive</i>, editor. In reality he is simply ], and he has been banned by admins in the past; he likely will be again. Best way to deal with him is simply to revert his edits.] (]) 06:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Gaming the system== | |||
I have stated who I am. This is the only name I sign in under. | |||
I have given an email address where I can be reached. | |||
I have not edited articles that I have a COI with. | |||
The fact you, ] have a weird obsession in editing all things associated to my wife and myself. | |||
# 18:13, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (→Acting: tangential material; reviews of minor films belong, at best, in the articles on the films) (top) | |||
# 18:12, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (→Spoken Word: giving a speech at a political rally is not a "spoken word performance," even if it is an open-mike event) | |||
# 18:11, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (→Model and stylist: claim not supported by cited page) | |||
# 18:10, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (→Personal life: Source says someone else was the MC/officiant at the wedding with pictures showing it wasn't Clint Catalyst) | |||
# 18:09, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (remove unconstructive changes made without regard to BLP and RS. Candace Bushnell didn't write the pilot to Sex and the City, btw, and the CBS evening news is generally known as having higher ratings) | |||
# 18:06, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Daniel Franzese (revert; remove reinsertion of unreliably sourced text made by IP user with false edit summary) (top) | |||
# 18:04, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) N User talk:69.238.165.217 (vandalism warning, deletion of GFDL images on bad faith claim of invalid fair use) (top) | |||
# 18:01, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Kyle Justin (RVV! Undid revision 287337344 by 69.238.165.217 (talk)) (top) | |||
# 18:00, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) Kyle Justin (Undid revision 287337608 by 69.238.165.217 (talk)) | |||
# 17:59, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Xtian1313 (→Sockpuppetry: new section) (top) | |||
# 17:44, 2 May 2009 (hist) (diff) User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (update) (top) | |||
# 22:38, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Clint Catalyst (→Documentation on Clint Catalyst development deal: comments) (top) | |||
# 22:37, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Clint Catalyst (typo) | |||
# 22:36, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (add CBS news report) | |||
# 22:33, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (→Television: rewrite text to reflect reference) | |||
# 22:31, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (→Works: cut and pasted from his own website, both copyvio and not RS) | |||
# 22:29, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (→Notes: remove unreliable sources and sources that don't support claims) | |||
# 22:28, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (not a screenwriter, no produced screenplays or verifiable sales of screenplays) | |||
# 22:27, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (remove repetition) | |||
# 22:27, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Clint Catalyst (Not what the cited sources say, and they' don't meet WP:RS anyway Undid revision 286887166 by Jayson23 (talk)) | |||
# 22:26, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Talk:Gidget Gein (→unsourced derogatory material: new section) (top) | |||
# 22:22, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein (→Career: unsourced, appears intended to demean) (top) | |||
# 22:21, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein (→Career: unsourced material laced with blp violations) | |||
# 22:20, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein (→Career: tangential, unreliably sourced to geocities fansite) | |||
# 22:20, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein (→Career: barely disguised insult) | |||
# 22:19, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Gidget Gein (→Career: obvious blp violation) | |||
# 22:19, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein (→Career: obvious blp violation) | |||
# 22:18, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein (→Early life: refs reqd) | |||
# 22:18, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gidget Gein ("Gidget" was not an actress.) | |||
# 22:16, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Miguel Rascón (→Trivia: remove unsourced & mostly unencyclopedic trivia section) (top) | |||
# 22:14, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Betsey Johnson (remove borderline advertising for her rental property and unnecessary headline) | |||
# 22:13, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Betsey Johnson (→How she started: unsourced namedropping and promotion) | |||
# 22:12, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Betsey Johnson (→How she started: remove namedropping) | |||
# 22:11, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (→History: ref reqd) (top) | |||
# 22:11, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) m Betsey Johnson (→How she started: style) | |||
# 22:10, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (→Trivia: unsourced trivia sectioon) | |||
# 22:09, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (→History: self-promotional, w no reliable sources) | |||
# 22:08, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Daniel Franzese (→Curator: sourced to press release and deadlink, no indication of encyclopediac significance) | |||
# 22:07, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (→History: prune unsourced/OR, ref reqd) | |||
# 22:06, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (→History: remove subjective/promotional/unsourced OR, ref reqd) | |||
# 22:05, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (→History: no sources, subjective/promotional/OR) | |||
# 22:04, 30 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (unsourced, subjective/promotional/OR) | |||
# 18:16, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Marion Peck (→History: remove unsourced and semisourced namedropping, other ref reqd) (top) | |||
# 18:15, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Rob Campanella (→The Quarter After: self-promotional spam) | |||
# 18:14, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Louise Post (→Personal life: promotional namedropping) (top) | |||
# 18:12, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Thee Heavenly Music Association (→Biography: unsourced/subjective/OR) | |||
# 18:11, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Chris Vrenna (→Career: remove lengthy unsourced discussion, other ref reqd) | |||
# 18:10, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Chris Vrenna (→Career: 3d party spam) | |||
# 18:09, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Terri Nunn (ref reqd) | |||
# 18:08, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Terri Nunn (promotional namedropping) | |||
# 18:07, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jennifer Syme (→Early Life and Career: unsourced, intrusive personal information, violates BLP re 3d party) (top) | |||
# 18:06, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jennifer Syme (→Early Life and Career: name-dropping) | |||
# 18:06, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden (→History: name-dropping, unreliably sourced and subjective) | |||
# 18:05, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden (→History: 3d party self-promotional spam) | |||
# 18:04, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden (→History: add a verb) | |||
# 18:04, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden (→History: subjective, unsourced, semispammy) | |||
# 18:03, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden (→History: promotional, subjective, apparent copyvio) | |||
# 18:02, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden (unreliably sourced and promotional in tone) | |||
# 18:01, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Mark Ryden (→History: spam images intended to promote band, not significant examples of artist's work, not really compliant with WP:FU) | |||
# 18:00, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Gottfried Helnwein (→Personal life: namedropping, main event already mentioned in article) | |||
# 17:57, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kinderwhore (clean up language) (top) | |||
# 17:56, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kinderwhore (→History: remove long section without reliable sources as OR, blp issues as well) | |||
# 17:55, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kinderwhore (rearrange slightly) | |||
# 17:53, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Roman Dirge (→Animation: unsourced 3d party promotional (borderline spam)) | |||
# 17:52, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb (→Style: unsourced, spammy if not dubious) | |||
# 17:51, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb (→Style: ref reqd, remove name-dropping) | |||
# 17:51, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb (→Recording career: unsourced, bordering on OR) | |||
# 17:50, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb (refs reqd) | |||
# 17:49, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Lisa Loeb (ref reqd) | |||
# 17:48, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie (promotional name-dropping) (top) | |||
# 17:47, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie (not encyclopedic) | |||
# 17:47, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie (refs reqd) | |||
# 17:45, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Cherie Currie (unsourced and spammy) | |||
# 17:44, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) American McGee's Alice (→Audio: unsourced, appears self-promotional) | |||
# 17:43, 25 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Kevin Haskins (→History: 3d party self-promotion) | |||
# 22:38, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jack Off Jill (→History: change text to reflect what source actually says) (top) | |||
# 22:36, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jack Off Jill (→History: unsourced/OR) | |||
# 22:36, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jack Off Jill (→History: not supported by cited source) | |||
# 22:35, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jessicka (→Jack Off Jill 1992-2000: fails RS as source is geocities page; even if source were RS, cites prediction as fact) | |||
# 22:34, 15 April 2009 (hist) (diff) Jessicka (→Jack Off Jill 1992-2000: not supported by cited source, apparently not true) | |||
I believe that you are . | |||
] (]) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Agreed. This user has been continuously vandalizing the ] page under false claims related to Misplaced Pages policies, that certainly seem like what that page describes. ] (]) 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Yes, he/she MOST DEFINITELY has a COI with all of these articles/individuals. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes far more destructive edits that actual useful contributions. I hope that some[REDACTED] editors with more experience than I have can help resolve this inappropriateness.] (]) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
I am betting that he is some homeless guy since he says that he hangs out in libraries and that is where he gets his internet access. Thats the kind of thing that a homeless guy would do. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I've been watching this all unfold for a while now. I am a fan of a lot of the people listed on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit list. I agree he/she certainly has a COI with all of these articles/individuals. I'm really not sure why a moderator or administrator isn't doing something about this person as they truly are being destructive on a lot of well written[REDACTED] pages. ] (]) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Suggested by ] here - This is my one and only account. Please feel free to check my IP address. | |||
] (]) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== This may help...? == | |||
Hey Hullaballoo! I believe this will be of interest to you: ]. Essentially, ] is attempting to out you as being me or my boyfriend. Obviously, for one, that's just not true, outing people is against wiki policy. ] outed me and attempted to out ] as someone, a while ago, and has been repeatedly informed that this is against policy. I believe that the person behind ] has a long history of editing articles under various revolving IP's and usernames, including ] and ]. There is a history of articles related to ] and the core member ] being built up/promoted by these IP's/usernames while articles of "perceived enemies" have been continusously torn down with negative/unnecessary/unproductive edits, since day one. These IP's have also included the names of ] and ] everywhere on wikipedia, essentially promoting/building up this person/band everywhere, all over wikipedia, even on the page for ]! | |||
Not to junk up your page with personal experiences, but my boyfriend ] was in their band, and his former bandmates (the 2 core members) do not like him, and neither does the person behind all these edits. ::clears throat:: I created a profile for him last year (]) before we were together and before I was in his band, not really understanding the policies of wiki involving conflicts of interest. I've since been outed/outed myself. And, myself and a good friend of mine, who created the articles related to ], no longer use the same account. I realize now I have been in violation of wiki policies before, and have made a concerted attempt to not violate them again. In any event, the articles for ], ], and ] (all people this person doesn't like) have been torn down repeated/obsessively since they were put up. It's all in the history. Thank you for reverting the most recent edits to the ] page done by this person, as it's obviously the same person doing unproductive/destructive/possibly hateful things. Even if the photos need to be taken down (I don't know), it's not right for that user to be gaming the system. Kyle even came on here on ]'s talk page to ask if someone could delete the article about him, because he doesn't want to be lumped into a category with the fame-junkies/minor league "internet celebrities"/wannabes. (You can find that here: ].) He got permission from Chzz to delete defamation of character/libel/legal threats and false accusations against him by ] on Chzz's talk page, but was unsuccessful at having his article deleted, as Chzz says it conforms to the notability standards. In any event, I hope some of this will help you out... you can delete all this to clean up your page. Just trying to help you out with more history on this situation. There are a lot more links I could send you for more information, if you like. (I honestly don't know if any of this helps.) | |||
Anyway, thanks for looking out. It's about time. ] and I have talked about doing a user check on this person for a while (go here to see that: ]). I checked all the IP's you listed against the ones I have, they all go back to the same location (the precise longitude and latitude) in Los Angeles, California. It's been a long time coming... I believe it's obvious that this all comes down to one person and a user check isn't even needed to see that. Honestly, I would love for a user check to be done on myself just to prove that I haven't done ANYTHING to the pages related to her (]) or ]... I could care less about their articles, as I do not ever want to associate with people like that, anymore, and neither does my boyfriend. :) Matt <small>–]]</small> 02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Question on ] Reverts== | |||
I am wondering how that Mr. Catalyst has authored with ISBN numbers is considered ] or ]. I am just curious as I personally see no problem with these edits. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • May 5, 2009 @ 17:07</small> | |||
:It was cut-and-pasted from Catalyst's own website, with ISBNs added, so it fails WP:RS for lack of independent reliable 3d party sourcing as well as raises copyright problems. It bore a marked resemblance to a list of books Catalyst was pushing in his website store, so it was promotional. A laundry list of non-notable short stories anthologized in non-notable anthologies doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, unless it's for a world class writer like ]. Granny/Amber/Tallulah is editing in concert with Catalyst, for promotional purposes, and it's a bad idea to encourage her. Nobody else does. ] (]) 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
: First of all, that's a load of malarkey! Authored books, are authored books, regardless of if you think this is for promotional purposes. Second of all, I don't know how you know my real name is Amber - that is even more proof that YOU have a COI with editing Catalyst's page and need to STOP. And lastly, I have no damn clue who this Granny person is, but they are NOT me. I've no reason to lie about that. I openly admit that Amber/Tallulah is the same person (and that is me). I'm NOT making major edits to the Clint Catalyst article anymore. Only very small things when I see something tiny. So, your snarky little comment of not encouraging me is asinine (just like you).] (]) 00:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
*Not only am I not Tallulah/Amber(?), the list was not "cut and pasted" as you continuously claim. If you'll notice, comparing them to the list on his website, some of the books don't even have the full titles listed on the website. Also, I did not see a store on his website when I looked. Catalyst is a well known author, there is no reason to omit entries from his bibliography which are well documented. If you think the books need more 3rd party sourcing than just ISBN numbers, add the citation needed tag instead of making destructive edits. ] (]) 04:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Regardless if it is copied, with the ISBN numbers added, that makes it reliable. ISBN numbers are as reliable as it gets. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;">] • ] • May 6, 2009 @ 06:11</small> | |||
:::Thanks, that's what I figured. This guy has a serious COI issue with the article, and it's going to take some work to get it back to a complete state. I'm going to go add these back now. ] (]) 11:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Just out of curiosity, do you know what in the world everyone is claiming your COI is with the article? I've warned ] to stop with the blatant reverting but I think we need a discussion at ] to get some sanity on this. -- ] (]) 01:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I have no clue what they think the conflict is. If I remember it right, it began with Xtian1313, who insisted that my removing unsourced/unreliably sourced information from the ] article was evidence of COI. Then the other buzznet folks picked it up. They throw accusations around pretty much insiscriminately. Check out this sockputter accusation, claiming that ] is the same user as me. ] ] (]) 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: I think it needs to go to the COIN noticeboard. They seem to be implying I have a COI too now. It's clear someone has told them just enough to be annoying. -- ] (]) 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Ann Jillian source removal == | |||
You removed one citing source representing actress Ann Jillian and declared it unreliable. For what particular reason? | |||
] School Classs at ] (]) 01:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Whosdatedwho.com is a gossip site, based primarily on user contributions, without any demonstrated practice of or reputation for fact checking. It therefore fails the requirements of ], which presents Misplaced Pages's reliable source policy in some detail. At best, sites like that are tertiary sources at best, and generally to be avoided. ] (]) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Lenora Claire -- COI and Sockpuppets== | |||
Dear Hullaballo, | |||
I notice that you, too, have been trying to clean up the Lenora Claire article which -- when I stumbled on to it -- read rather more as a press release. In reviewing the edit history I see SPA LenoraClaire has been active in editing it as has a Los Feliz Los Angeles ip which I suspect to be controlled by Ms Claire. Most recently another ip vandalised the talk page to delete a COI note I added. Do you think it worth reporting these socks or protecting the page or something else? ] (]) 17:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] COI concerns == | |||
I have posted a note at ] about the COI concerns with ]. -- ] (]) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Jessicka, Christian Hejnal, Scarling./Sockpuppet_investigations/Xtian1313 == | |||
Now that the sock puppet investigation you started has come to a conclusion, "Conclusions | |||
I'm not seeing evidence here that proves or is strongly suggestive of a link between Parenttrap and Xtian1313, or evidence that 3RR or other tenets of WP:SOCK were violated by the IP editing if the IP and Xtian1313 are the same user. Please refile if you find further evidence, and present that evidence using diffs specifically. Nathan T 16:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
This case has been marked as closed. It will be archived after its final review by a Clerk or Checkuser." | |||
:I am coming to you in good faith- inorder to ask you not to edit articles dealing with my wife Jessicka, myself, (Christian Hejnal), or my band Scarling. (including albums). | |||
I myself am not editing these articles, for obvious reasons. | |||
Please allow editors who do not have a ] with these subjects and can maintain a ] to edit these articles. | |||
fair? | |||
Whatever issues you have with me, please feel free to email me at scarlingmusic@aol.com so we may take them off wiki. | |||
Thank-you. | |||
] (]) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Administrators noticeboard COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz== | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz | |||
] (]) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Your PRODs of various porn actors within a short timespan == | |||
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have prodded a number of these articles within a short timespan (minutes). It seems likely that you have made no attempt to follow ]. A number of the pages do make claims to notability, a porn star with a Magna cum laude university degree, a porn start with a black belt in tae-kwondo and bronze medal from Junior Olympics, a pornstar which has appeared in every major men's magazine, a porn star with a whoppin' film count (161), sprinkled with nominations within that film industry, some multiple; and a person (photographer) for whom I think the bio-porn is not even relevant.... It raises the probability that someone with an interest in the topic could establish notability. I'm therefore not at all sure that your nominations are uncontroversial and hence suitable for PROD. Reading some of the posts above also leads me to believe, that it is defensible for me to revert those PRODs, which I have done. ] (]) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah, I too am getting the impression from above that you may be attempting to moralize based on your personal philosophy. That has no place in Misplaced Pages. If you don't like certain topics, please feel free to stay away from those pages. ] (]) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== An3 == | |||
I've removed an edit of yours from AN3 . The section is closed, and your edit was unhelpful. Please seek to avoid inflammatory language ] (]) 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Hello Hullaballoo. I took a look at the case you recently filed at ]. If you can establish that people connected with the subject are editing their article, you could file at ]. This could be a better venue than AN3. Due to the nature of your work, you may wind up sounding combative. But if COI is calmly assessed, reasonable remedies can be put in place, oftentimes by agreement. Admin action is possible in cases where nothing else seems to work. ] (]) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== RE: Removal of valid AIV report without blocking vandal -- why == | |||
I swear I did not do that. Someone is messing with my account. Even though I have changed my password. ] {{toolbar|separator=dot|] | ] }}<font size="4">☺</font> 18:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Semi == | |||
I've semi-protected your user page due to anon vandals. ] (]) 08:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you. ] (]) 14:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== RE:Swancookie == | |||
I'll keep it short with you as I did with Swancookie. | |||
I have no interest or care as to what the ongoing dispute is concerning yourself and several other users. | |||
My sole intent was to get all this into dispute resolution and stop cluttering up talk pages, message boards, and using helpme templates. That is all, I have no sides and I don't care to. ] (]) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Whatever your intent, it wasn't appropriate to give Swancookie a response that appeared to approve of clear personal attacks like "underhanded jerk." ] (]) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Point taken. ] (]) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Re: Blake Lively article == | |||
I never put spam links in any article. I actually just clicked the link and it took me to scans of a Nylon magazine article. How is that vandalism? If you're having trouble accessing the article, please take that up with the site manager, not me. Thanks. --] (]) | |||
:You put in links to a spamsite and claimed they were links to a legitimate source. That's never appropriate. Even if you hadn't intended to deceive anybody, 1)you should know that sites like that pose hazards to users (my antimalware software reported a stream of tracking cookies and other stuff coming from that site that does nothing but bad stuff to any legitimate user), and 2) the link violated multiple other Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines, like ] and ]. It's also a site that requires registration, which is generally frowned on, since so many of such ssites (there are, of course, recognized exceptions) exist to harvest email addresses for sale to spammers. ] (]) 01:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== AN/I == | |||
Just so you know, you don't have to be an admin to mark a topic "resolved". -<font face="verdana" color="black">'''t'shael'''</font><sup>]</sup> 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Maybe not, but a participant in an active debate certainly shouldn't shut it down in order to prevent another editor from responding. ] (]) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Illegal Link Deletion == | |||
We have proof that you are abusing your powers and privileges in regard to external link deletion. Please leave the name of your supervisor so way may send said proof forward. I hope you learn a lesson from this and cease to use your own personal bias to hurt the[REDACTED] project. {{unsigned|GlobalCorp}} | |||
:I've left a comment on this editor's page. Threatening or trying to intimidate another editor is not allowed here . ] (]) 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Julie Benz == | |||
Hi, I declined your request for PP of ], but you should certainly renominate it if the vandalism starts up again. I believe it is only one disruptive editor, which should be able to be handled through warnings/blocks. It would be great if you could issue warnings as well. I won't always be logged in, so again issue warnings and feel free to renominate it if the vandalism continues. Thanks for your help! ] (]) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Jerri Manthey == | |||
Thanks, it looks much better now. ] (]) 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Courtney Culkin == | |||
How do you justify deleting my entry but retaining the entry about her appearing on Playboy TV? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Because it made unreferenced health-related claims in a BLP, because the version of the interview on the Maxim site doesn't identify her as the playmate, but only as "Courtney" (not "Cortney"). Absent a verifiable source, we're left with only your opinion that "Courtney" is the playmate "Courtney Rachel Culkin," and though that evaluation might turn out to be true, it doesn't meet Misplaced Pages standards for ]. The Playboy TV claim and other unsourced stuff in the article could also be removed, but my edit today came while I was reviewing recent changes, rather than the entire article. ] (]) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Fair enough. I remember the version in the magazine didn't mention her as a Playmate either. I guess the interview on their site didn't show a picture? I remember when I saw it...I had to do a double-take. It was definately her, but I guess since it doesn't meet the Misplaced Pages standards then oh well. Thanks for clarifying...Kuzosake ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Opinion requested == | |||
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your input on this topic: ] | |||
Thanks, <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 03:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Good Catch! == | |||
Thank you for catching the Jodie Foster mis-edit re. Yale School of Drama cat. That editor also added the same cat to the ] article. I don't know if it's true in Streep's case, but I've asked the editor via User:Talk page to stop removing the Yale U. cat. Even if Streep or any megastar attended the Drama school, readers may still look for them in the Yale U. cat as well.<br> — <small>]]</small> 15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Mayer Brown == | |||
Just a friendly note on ]. I wasn't comfortable deleting this as a speedy, since there were non-infringing versions and, as you rightly pointed out, it was a complicated case. Instead, I took a chainsaw to it and rewrote everything outside the info box. Mind taking a look and letting me know if it works for you? Thanks! --] | ] 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Looks fine to me, good job! ] (]) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Thank you for catching the issue with that award. Cook has won an Emmy with NBC and I thought that was the one. I really do appreciate you catching it and fixing it for me. ] 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Questions for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz == | |||
Hi, thanks for looking over the Dana Delany article. But I wanted to know further why you edited out from Dana's significant others people like Treat Williams and Henry Czerny. Yahoo Movies lists them both as significant others for Dana. And what source did you say was NNDB (and why do you think it's a bad source?) On the internet, I've found pictures of Dana with Treat Williams (standing close together). And my sense is the connection with Henry Czerny is real as well. How did you come to the conclusion that the sources which you removed were bad ones? ] (]) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
:NNDB not reliable, see ] and comments like Jimbo Wales's: "Why on earth should we consider it a valid source? It seems to me to be riddled with errors, many of which were lifted directly from Misplaced Pages" | |||
:news.absolutely.net is an aggregation sits which appears to get most of its content from WENN, which identifies itself as a celebrity gossip blog. Fails ] | |||
:whosdatedwho.com and famouswhy.com are similar gossip sites which simply package and pass on content from sources that generally fail ]. Check out the "partners" list for whosdatedwho, I don't think there's a single RS there. Famouswhy, in addition, styles itself a provider of "shocking" news, which should be taken as a warning sign. | |||
:I edited out all the "significant others" where all the sources for the relationship were unreliable. ] requires very sound sourcing for biographical claims, and these don't really relate strongly to Delany's notability. ] (]) 22:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, Hullaballoo! I didn't know about those sources being unreliable and will watch out for them in the future and won't include them. I wrote down the bad sources and I'll try to avoid them in the future. It would be really cool if there was some kind of "source meter" so I could type in a source and see what Misplaced Pages thinks about it. In fact, while researching the Dana Delany article, I couldn't find anything substantive to show a link between Dana and Don Henley of the Eagles. I'm wondering if I could rewrite the line to just say something like "Dana has reportedly had a number of relationships with prominent men" but not list any names -- do you think this would be better? Plus, I'm wondering about possibly changing the organization of the article around rather substantially, but I want to seek the advice from others before doing anything major. ] (]) 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
::Oh, here is what I'm thinking about how to reorganize the Dana Delany article which I haven't done yet, but am asking your advice about:] (]) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
::I think the article is getting much better, the information is solid with excellent references, but the subcategories are somewhat off. There's a section called "Voice work" which interrupts the early career and later career stuff (but I agree with editors who think Dana's voice work is important and should be emphasized, although I don't think it should be included as a major section, but rather mixed into the chronological sections). But it's like the format switches gears mid-stream (sorry about mixing metaphors) from chronology to type of work (ie voice), and I hope we could get something which is more logically consistent, as well as helping readers find information that they need quickly. And I think all of it could be better organized somehow. I think most biographies have a chronological format, from early to current, and this is the best choice. I'm wondering: what categories can we have which keeps the chronological format while emphasizing the voice work? I've been researching this actress for some time now and my sense is that she's not a lightweight pretty face type actress but a serious, intense heavy-duty one who can master tough roles, a powerhouse who loves acting but sometimes gets snared in frivolous projects, and the consistent thing about her career is: a love of acting. That's what she loves. And I don't think things like friendships or causes should have their own section but rather should be included in the chronology when they're relevant and appropriate. But here's my sense of her career goes something like this -- ] (]) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
I. early life (birth, schooling) | |||
II. New York City -- breaking into the business | |||
Soap operas | |||
Broadway (critical reviews) | |||
Off-Broadway (critical attention) | |||
Key friendships and connections (Christopher Reeve, for example) | |||
III. Early Hollywood years (TV guest starring spots, China Beach) -- establishing herself as a major actress | |||
TV guest starring spots (showcasing her talent) | |||
China Beach (should include: how did she get this role? should get its own paragraph I think, mentioning Emmys plus critical attention) | |||
Movies | |||
TV movies | |||
Voice work (The Batman/Superman, Lois Lane, fan reactions, critical acclaim -- Why Dana = major voice talent) | |||
IV. Later Hollywood years -- pursuing acting | |||
More TV work (sitcoms that didn't get off the ground, critical reviews, etc) | |||
Other projects (narrating, Vietnam nurses, audio books) | |||
Guest spots on talk shows | |||
Dana-as-a-celebrity (being a presenter in awards shows, talk show appearances, interactions with fans) | |||
Causes (scleroderma, other causes) | |||
V. Filmography | |||
VI. Awards | |||
VII. Notable achievements | |||
VIII. References | |||
So, Hullabaloo, do you like this organizational scheme? I'm wondering what you think? I'm interested in getting feedback from excellent[REDACTED] editors such as yourself.] (]) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
== Your recent warning on ] == | |||
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'd like to remind you to add your signature after any talk page posts or warnings so we know who you are ;-). Thanks. - ] | ] | ] - 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Talkback == | |||
{{talkback|Drilnoth}} | |||
–] (] • ] • ]) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] nomination of ] == | |||
]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "]"). | |||
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
'''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== "See also" section at '']'' == | |||
Hi there. I noted your comments in the edit summary for your removal of the entries from that section; to clarify, ] was not primarily about using Allmovie in the way that Erik implemented at ''Fight Club'', but one over its suitability as an external link. The discussion petered out with no real conclusion—with no support, but also no consensus objection to such a use. I invite you to participate at ], where your thoughts on Erik's intended use of the section would be appreciated. All the best, ] <sup>] • ]</sup> 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Ilona Staller == | |||
I agree that Chicapedia is not a reliable source. I intend to delete all reference to it except where in one case where it reinforces another reference. Please let me finish editting before you begin. Thanks | |||
: International Museum of Women not a reliable source? Belfaast Telegraph? Even In-Out Star website clearly did fact checking on their article. I've improved the quality of this article, including citing everything, yet you continue to automatically revert, adding back drivel like "she lost her virginity at sixteen". Please look more in depth before you turn back improvements. 15:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Rebecca Scott == | |||
Hi, could you please explain to me why you removed my Rebecca Scott reference? How is this unreliable? It seems pretty reliable to me. Thanks! ] (]) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:http://www.stlouis-strippers.com/ doesn't meet the requirements of ], and in particular doesn't meet the requirements of ]. It's a self-published source and isn't very different, for Misplaced Pages sourcing purposes, from a blog. ] (]) 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Excellent detective work there. —] / 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
: ] - fantastic. —] / 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Redped== | |||
I am very sorry, for deleting things from ], ] & ]. | |||
Redped | |||
xx <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
==Removal of PROD from ]== | |||
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from ] to inform you the PROD template you added to ] has been removed. It was removed by ] with the following edit summary '<nowiki>(Undid revision 304803778 by KevinOKeeffe (talk) asserts notability)</nowiki>'. Please consider ] with Chuthya before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to ] for community discussion. Thank you, ] (]) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) <small>(])</small> | |||
== re: SDPatrolBot == | |||
Hmmm, that was added (making it notify the first user to tag) per suggestions at the ]. It's to avoid warning a vandalism reverter (say, a user tags the article, another user blanks (removing the PROD) ClueBot reverts (restoring the PROD), another user removes the PROD, ClueBot gets notified. Not that that's important, just my little defence ;). Anyway, I'll look into a way to get around this (possible using the date the PROD was added, or something similar). Thanks for letting me know :) - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I know how I'll do it; I'll just check if the edit was revert or not. Problem should be solved some time tomorrow (before the next PROD run) :). Cheers - ]<sup>]</sup> (]) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Seeking your advice about the ] article == | |||
Hi excellent Hullaballoo. Wondering if you'd advise me about an article. Many users feel the ] article is a lopsided, one-way '''advertising piece''' for Celente, a gloom-and-doom forecaster and business consultant, talking head. Most "references" in the existing article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) ] (]) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
So I spent a day '''researching''' the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly (2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain), and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I expect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the[REDACTED] article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's ''always making gloom-and-doom predictions'' (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) ] (]) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
So I '''rewrote''' much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. And I posted my re-edit. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". (I did have comments on the talk page from earlier, but they were ignored). I'm wondering what to do here. Do you have any advice? I've posted comments on the reverting editor's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? ] (]) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
:While I agree that your revision of the article was an improvement, I think it came across (not unlike the original) as presenting too much ]. Because it both presented and evaluated Celente's track record, rather than using third-party sources to do the evaluation, it had serious sourcing problems. Misplaced Pages doesn't allow good original research, although a lot of it slips through on first review. (That's one of the difficulties in dealing with articles about crackpots; they tend to be ignored by reliable sources rather than refuted by them.) I've taken a healthy chunk of the inappropriate material out of the article this morning, but a great deal remains. I'll take another look at your version when I have more time, to see which parts can be salvaged. ] (]) 17:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks. I've reworked it too, adding stuff back in, and I hope you like the effort as it stands now (10:30pm Tuesday Aug 4 eastern US time). Not quite sure what you're getting at in talking about "original research", but I'll read over the original-research link (tomorrow) and try to make sense of it. I agree third-party sources doing the evaluating is best -- and all we do is report what the third-party evaluating source says. But suppose I find that there are, say, numerous appearances of Celente on talk radio and TV shows. But no third-party source SAYS that Celente has "appeared on numerous shows". Then, I'm not allowed to state what, to me, is obvious? Like, Celente appeared on numerous shows. I have references to these shows. ] (]) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
::I think if we adhere to policy too strictly, we won't be able to say what's obvious, or tell the truth, that is, I don't think any encyclopedia article will be able to say much of anything, because there's so much interpretation involved in any kind of thought process. But I'll try harder to get at what you're saying. But I definitely see your point about crackpots. I don't think Celente is a true crackpot, but uses outlandish statements to get media attention (and help reporters sell papers) but his business consulting is much more mild. But you're right -- respectable outlets tend to ignore him. I still don't think it's "original research" for me to examine predictions he's made, and conclude that predictions about the economy tend to be dire and overly pessimistic (they are) while his predictions about specific business patterns (the DIY market) are more mild. I have references to both instances in which economic prediction X is dire, business prediction Y is more reasonable. There are references. So am I editorializing? ] (]) 02:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
:::I read carefully over the "no original research" policy and I'm seeing what you're saying. And this policy is agreeable and sensible. What was especially informative was the example of how two facts, each referenced, could be used together to be "original research" and I'll watch for this in the future. Remember that the current ] article has stuff in it that didn't originate from me -- and it looks like original research -- but I'll watch for it regarding myself. It's a smart policy, overall. The only area where I disagree with Misplaced Pages's policy is about excluding the "tiny minority" view -- I think in some cases these should be included, but labeled as such, and given very little weight (since they're held by VERY few people). ] (]) 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer | |||
==RE: comments at ] AFD== | |||
you may be interested in this ] ] (]) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Dispute Resolution Process== | |||
] Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the ] by posting in {{#if:|]|one of the dispute resolution forums}}. Please note that it is recommended that you advise the other party of your complaint filing so that they are aware of it, and so that they have a chance to respond. | |||
If you have any questions, check out ] or ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 16:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I do intend to do that, but the user posted that he's signed off for the night, and I want to cool off a little more to avoid posting something inflammatory. Is that OK, as a rule? ] (]) 16:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:: You're required to advise them when you open the WQA filing. All you have to do is say "Due to our recent issue, I have started a discussion at ]. I hope you'll provide input, thanks" ... or you can use the template {{tlsx|WQA-notice}} if you wish. See, it's nice and friendly. I do hope you have read the ongoing discussion at WQA since. You are also required to try and resolve the issue directly with the other editor before taking it to WQA, by the way. (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
This edit: is unacceptable. You are, in my view, personalising this debate too much. Please don't do that sort of thing again. It may be helpful to review ], because as BWilkins has pointed out, you're not working amicably to resolve the dispute you started, you're engaged in a series of moves that (in my view) are more escalatory than they are conciliatory. Please try to edit more collegially and in the spirit of working together and seeking consensus instead of editing so confrontationally. Even if you think that in your view the other party or parties is/are being confrontational. ++]: ]/] 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shuttee == | |||
Sorry about causing the extra work there. Must have copied over the same template twice and didn't notice. Thanks. ] ] ] 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet== | |||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>An article that you have been involved in editing, ], has been listed for ]. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at ]. Thank you.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.<!-- Template:Adw --> – <font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Wait... == | |||
... you don't think Meryl Streep and Alyssa Milano could compete for the same role??? Gotta admit, that one was pretty amusing... (which role, by the way?) Nice to meet you. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.<p>While I agree with the substance of what you say, please could you consider toning down some of the more extreme phrases?—] ]/] 00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I assume you're referring to the "tantrum" point, which reflects not only the nominator's behaviour at AFD but also his comments like these elsewhere. I think it's important to make clear to the nominator that even people who share his unhappiness over the way the 2d closure occurred find his current response beyond the pale. ] (]) 00:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I agree with that. I just think it's possible to say it in a more collegial manner, that's all.—] ]/] 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Archiving suggestion == | |||
Hey, just a quick note...your User talkpage comes up with a size warning for being too big. Have you thought of ] it in order to reduce it? Have a look at the source code from my my talkpage on setting it up, or feel free to ask! (]<span style="border:1px solid black;">''' ] '''</span>]) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Typo fix. == | |||
Thanks. :-) ] (]) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
Hi. Regarding your edit , I just wondered why you feel source is unacceptable, as XBiz always indicate whenever their articles are a press release, such as . Maybe your views could be incorporated into the guidelines at ]. Thanks. ] (]) 16:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I reverted it before seeing this comment. XBIZ is very careful about not taking ownership of press releases unless their staff checks everything out. Second, Meggan Mallone was a mainstream model in high school. Mainstream as in non-porn, not mainstream as in famous or popular. If there truly is an issue about mainstream being misleading (as ip addresses have seemed to dispute), it can be restated to simply fashion model or commercial model. ] (]) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] article == | |||
Every reference source I added to the Hank Skinner article points to either an actual court document from the case, or an article in a legitimate newspaper. Where possible, I also added a link to the same court document or article at the Hank Skinner advocacy site. Both sides have referenced material to support their edits, often from the same document. The article is hardly "poorly referenced. Where claims are unsupported, citation needed tags have been added. It's not like the article has been in a constant state of flux. The people who made those claims should have an opportunity to provide whatever sourcing material they have. As for my edits, I stand by them 100%. ] (]) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The article is very poorly referenced; many of the major claims are unsourced or cited to documents that do not actually support the claims. Much of the material you insist on adding back reflects your analysis of primary source documents, which is prohibited by Misplaced Pages ] against original research. The article also includes various completely unsourced allegations against persons living and dead, violating in some cases ]. Your version of the article, as other editors have noted, is essentially an advocacy piece on behalf of the prisoner, which violates Misplaced Pages's ]. And your repeated unfounded accusations of vandalism violate Misplaced Pages policies prohibiting ] and requiring ]. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the applicable policies and conform to them, to avoid the ]. ] (]) 02:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I disagree. By merely tossing out the phrase and not backing it up with specific instances your complaint has no merit. First, since most of the documents are official court documents, the claims of both sides will most likely call upon the same documents for support, especially when it comes to testimony. The material I "added back" - actually restored after your vandalism, is not "my analysis", but the position of the prosecution and *supported* by the primary sources, which I might add again are for the most part public documents intended to document the adjudication of this case. If you look at the dates from the discussion page (or actually used the discussion page prior to resorting to vandalism) you will notice that the article was called an advocacy piece *before* I made my first edits. My edits reversed that tilt. If you include the "citation needed" tags I added to the claims tending toward innocence the article now clearly tilts against the advocacy position. In checking the dates on the history page you would have seen that many of the people who created the first drafts of the article are just now returning to the article after a year or more and have started in a serious manner to respond the new edits. As for "unfounded accusations of vandalism", I stand by that statement. If you were serious about editing that article you would have brought up your specific concerns, line by line if necessary on the discussion page, made public your suggestions for specific edits and allowed people to respond. You didn't do that. By your own words on your user page you blew in here after a long absence and reduced a 2000 word article to a blurb without so much as a heads up to those who have worked on it for the last several years. Can you do that? Sure. That's how Misplaced Pages works. But it works the same way on both sides of the street. The others and myself can change it back as easily as you can vandalize it. If you report me I need only to point to the chronological history of the edits, the discussion page of the article, myself and here. As it stands now, there is no way for someone to know which source you think is poorly sourced. The only "clue" is your cryptic line in the edit justification fields about poorly sourced claims. Even when your changes have been reversed you bring them back without further justification. So if you are serious about making that article better, join the process and work with the people who created it and changed it. What you did *is* vandalism, as evidenced by the way you went about it. ] (]) 03:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::It's clear from your comments that you haven't reviewed any of the applicable policies; no BLP with so many "citation needed" tags and unsourced comments, often accusations, regarding third parties, can fairly be described as anything but poorly sourced. Your accusations of vandalism towards me and other editors are unfounded, uncivil nonsense. You also have provided no justification for your deletion of the only information and referencing supporting any claim that the article subject is notable; unfortunately, domestic abuse killings are common and do not confer notability on their perpretrators (most of whom continue to assert their innocence file extend appeals in similarly nonnotable fashion). Further comments included incivility, personal attacks, or complete failure to address the relevant WP policy issues will be deleted from this page without any other response. ] (]) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==] == | |||
To describe the Jenrette's sexual escapades as merely "events that transpired during their marriage" is ludicrously bland. Avoiding libel doesn't need to sound like a legal brief. In version you reverted was far more modest than the saucy stories she's written about herself. 02:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:The fact that you find the standing text (which I didn't write) "bland" doesn't give you any justification for inserting unsourced commentary reflecting your subjective characterizations into the article. ], ]. ] (]) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Two editors?== | |||
You premised your revert on two editors having objected to the material. They have not. Because it therefore rests on an erroneous premise, you should rescind your reversion immediately.<font face="palatino linotype" color="#000000">- Simon Dodd</font> <small>{ ]·]·]·] }</small> 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:] deleted the same material yesterday , citing ] in his edit summary. I'm not interesting in parsing his edit summary; he objected to the material, I object to the material, and that's enough to demonstrate that two editors objected to the material. So if anyone needs to "rescind" anything, it's you. ] (]) 17:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Your Comments== | |||
When you said that I hadn't left this user alone, I took that as a personal attack, because I have not done anything outside of Misplaced Pages policy. Frankly I did not target this user in any way, but merely did what I felt was necessary as an editor. When you looked through my edit history and publicized spelling mistakes that I made, I took it as a personal attack, because it really had no bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't expect people to be perfect and I expect that I too will make mistakes. What I don't expect is to have somebody attempt to embarrass me by pulling it out in a public forum. According to ], personal attacks are comments on contributors rather than content. Due to the fact that you commented on my occupation and edit history, I took this as an attack. I realize that this may not have been your intent, but it is how it came across. I was not calling your challenging my edits a personal attack. In fact you were correct that the article was not identical, which I did not notice when I typed that comment. I did notice it before the second time I created the redirect, and felt that it wasn't fundamentally different in terms of content determining notability. If you notice, the second conversion to a redirect happened three days after the article was recreated. So yes, I do feel that I afforded him time to improve the article before converting it back to a redirect. If you read the talk page, the editor didn't respond to anything that I had written, but rather just restated his point and undid my revision. My reason for tagging for speedy deletion was to get an administrator's opinion on the whole matter. I don't like edit wars, and I didn't want to be engaged in one. If the speedy was declined I would have left it be and tried to find sources. Which I actually did try to do before I converted to a redirect the first time and the second time. Sources such as & , which were all top listings on google, had some information, but either just connected him to HP Lovecraft or gave information that really didn't make him notable. For example, my great-great grandfather was considered a master plumber in his time. He was considered the top in his field in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings there. The info I have on him reads very similar to Whipple Van Buren Phillips. Does my ancestor merit an article any less because he's not related to anyone famous? My honest feeling is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion as the article stands. I listed it at AFD to form consensus. I stated my opinion, and that's exactly what it is, an opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with me, and in fact I don't expect you to. What I am asking is that you understand where I'm coming from on this, and realize this is not something I did out of the blue to cause problems for another editor, but rather something I felt should be done based on my own research and experience. ] (]) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Network television schedules== | |||
Hi Hull, | |||
Your input at ] would be greatly appreciated. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Choice of word for ] plastic surgery and dating ] rumors == | |||
Hello, Hullaballoo. The reason the word "denied" was not used to get the point across that she says these rumors are incorrect is because "deny/denied" falls into the ] category in this case. I have to state that it does make it sound as though she is lying. Whether we believe whatever she denies in this case to be a lie or not is beside the point, of course. If you have any other suggestions for a word to replace "refuted" (instead of "denied"), I am definitely up to listening to what you have to say about the matter. ] (]) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:"Refuted" is definitely the wrong word to use here. "Refuted" is conclusory; it implies that she proved the rumors false. I think you're relying on the wrong part of ] here. The word "denied," per the guideline, is to be avoided in the context of criminal charges of similar accusations of serious misconduct. It is acceptable "in situations involving unproved or disproved ideas and fringe theories, in which the words are used not to presume guilt, but to note that an assertion is known to be incorrect or without consensus." None of the matters involved here amount to allegations of criminal behavior (or even of misconduct of any sort); indeed, rumors seem to fit neatly into the category of "unproved or disproved ideas" where saying "denied" is specifically recognized as appropriate. ] (]) 14:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I know what "refuted" means; it can also mean the same thing as "denied" but without as much implication of "lying." The word "denied" should not only be avoided in the context of criminal charges in serious accusations of serious misconduct. I have witnessed several ] and ] articles avoid the word "denied" where it can give the impression that the person is lying. The word "denied" should generally be avoided, as the guideline states, because it can give the impression that the person is hiding something or is lying. It may be used where uncontroversial, sure, but I am not seeing how the implication that O'Day had plastic surgery or dated Sean Combs is uncontroversial; they are very rampant rumors, which have been known to upset some O'Day fans...while being accepted as fact by other O'Day fans and some people in general. It has been a hotly debated topic for some time. I suggest the word "dispelled" in place of "refuted" and "denied'...unless you feel that "dispelled" necessarily means that she made thoughts about the rumors being true vanish for good. ] (]) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Caleb Followill == | |||
why did you delete my stuff that I wrote under influences? it was properly sourced and relevant. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Well, first of all, it wasn't properly sourced; you linked to the wrong page, which standing alone wouldn't be a big deal. Second, what you wrote doesn't line up well with what the article said. (EG, "Soft" is very clearly not a song about "going bald"; it's a song about male sexual performance failure, and Followill says so rather plainly.) Third, much of the paragraph involved is not descriptive of what Followill said, but your interpretation of it and commentary on the album -- which, under Misplaced Pages guidelines, original research (OR), and to the extent it reflects on Followill not appropriate in the biography of a living person (BLP). The sentence beginning "His lyrics often appear nonsensical" is clearly personal opinion, even if a mainstream view; if a claim like that is included at all, it should be sourced to a review or critical piece, preferably in a major publication. Fourth, an "Influences" section in a musician's article is normally about musical and lyrical influences, not about the artist's psyche. | |||
:The material you're trying to work up would fit better in the "personal life" section, or perhaps in the album-specific article. I'd suggest posting a new draft on the talk page of either article and asking for comments; if you leave me a note when you do this I'll try to leave my comments quickly. ] (]) 02:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Tone of edit summary == | |||
Please ]. Edit summary comments like "fake support for notability!" on ] do not support that assumption. Thanks. ] (]) 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:First of all, your edit summaries like "dealing with deletionism" show the same lack of good faith you criticize me for. Second, you're an experienced and competent editor, and you should not have created links in the "Co-Ed fever article to various people who clearly did not appear in the film, including the guy who died in the 17th century, as well as twice adding the name of the mainstream actress who did not appear in the film (although an nn porn actress with a similar name did). Third, you added what is essentially a spamlink to a retailer/VOD site to the external links section, and added a paraphrase of promotional copy from that site to the body of the article, without referencing its source. If you don't want your edits to be criticized, don't make such glaring errors which give the impression of promotional intent. ] (]) 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Deletionism is not a pejorative; it's a ]. I like the alliteration and assonance of using "dealing" with that term. I don't mind being criticized for errors, though it's generally better to correct them quietly (with simple explanations if warranted). Once again, I encourage you to stop ascribing intent (especially bad-faith intent) to other editors. I have no interest in this particular film other than to prevent its article from being deleted. Thanks. ] (]) 20:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Your comments clearly come across as pejorative, and your failure to seriously address the relevant article's failure to meet the GNG is conspicuous. None of the claims you added verifiably support notability under ], and you show much more interest in haranguing me than in legitimate debate. You have repeatedly implied that I hold a "philosophical position" that bears no resemblance to my intentions, and isn't reflected by my editing history, and that is nothing more than the sort of "ascribing intent" you condemn. I'm not interested in any further personalized discussion with an editor who applies different standards to other editors than she does to herself. ] (]) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Warning == | == Warning == | ||
This is a warning but moreso a proposal of me archiving this damn page for you. Cause I totally will! I'll even do it by dates if you want, it'll ease my OCD :) Oh and you have 24 hours to respond or I will take that as you want me to :) <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #08F,-4px -4px 15px #8F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
<s>] Please refrain from leaving vandal warnings on an editor's page when there was no vandalism to begin with. So, this warning seems kind of redundent, doesn't it.</s> | |||
*FYI I just saved your page on my desktop. It was 3mb. This means that if I run out of mobile data it will cost me 60p (i.e a buck) for the priviledge of reading the latest diatribe aimed at you. Popcorn to entertainment this is a poor deal. Please archive.. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
Having said that, I left a perfectly viable explanation when I originally removed the deletion notice. Did you even bother to look at the deletion header before reverting my edit and leaving me the unnecessary message? Please ] of the fifth nomination. --] (]) 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
:You did not leave anything resembling a "viable explanation." You removed a deletion notice before the AFD had run its course. You did not close, or attempt to close, the AFD, or participate in the AFD, and your action did not reflect the consensus of the AFD. Nor did it reflect the consensus of the prior AFD; the one-year hiatus was a suggestion made by one editor, not accepted by anyone else, in particular the closing admin. (Even if that was the past consensus, consensus can change.) If you're going to misrepresent the outcome of a prior process, and ignore the process for handling a current dispute, your edits will be indistinguishable from, and treated as, vandalism -- as 99+% of the removal of deletion notices without proper closure of AFD discussions are vandalism. ] (]) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::You can call it vandalism if it makes you feel better. Any further comments from you on my talk page will be struck through and duly ignored. --] (]) 20:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== AfD template removal on Ashida Kim == | |||
I think the removal was more an expression of Ghostexorcist's frustration with the repeated nomination then vandalism. --]]/] 08:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== I would like your advice == | |||
When you have time, can we please collaborate on how to make the Masiela Lusha page polished and presentable? As of now, Wiki is still citing a need for polishing and fixing -- more so with your re-editing. | |||
I admire your eye on precision, and I feel I have a lot to offer as well, while supporting it with legitimate article links, etc. | |||
I don't intend to "spam" or include bogus links, but I could use some help to make both your job and my job a little easier. | |||
Thank you in advance, | |||
Aaron W <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
==Mandingo (porn star)== | |||
I don't have the patience to get into a revision war with you, but Mandingo's penis size, though poorly sourced, is widely known and central to his fame. Your repeated attempts to remove it are particularly obnoxious given your refusal to participate in the Discussion page. I specifically started a topic related to the subject on the talk page; your summaries in your edit notes aren't cutting it. ] (]) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Two New castmembers SNL == | |||
Hi Hullabaloo, | |||
How are you? I just wanted to let you know that even if this rumour started up on a certain blog, the rumour of the new castmembers has popped up on TV Guide.com http://www.tvguide.com/News/SNL-New-Cast-1009401.aspx as well as some other mainstream sites. Now I know they reference the original blog, but I just wanted to make you aware of the new sites featuring the news. I don't know what to make of it though. Guess we'll have to wait for the premiere! Thanks ] (]) 20:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC) samusek2 | |||
:Thanks very much for finding this; it wasn't in any of the news searches I did when I requested semi-protection. Since TV Guide, a reliable source, says it's conformed the story, it's definitely good to go. ] (]) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I would like your opinion regarding inclusion of rumored future events. Please see ] for a discussion on the topic. I used the SNL article and the rumored new cast members as an example. One editor suggested removing the rumor with an explanation. However, removig this kind of rumor would probably just start an add/delete sequence as some people may reasonably conclude a confirmed rumor by a reputable news source is the same as a fact. Noting the casting as a rumor until NBC confirms the casting makes more sense to me. What do you think?] (]) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Sockpuppetry case== | |||
] You are suspected of ], which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Misplaced Pages accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the ], then respond to the evidence at ]. Thank you.<!-- Template: Uw-socksuspect --> <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for the notification. I have denied the accusation at the page specified in the notice. ] (]) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Just in case you weren't aware, you are accused of sockpuppetry ]. ] (]) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
You removed relevant and sourced material, with the rationale that the information or sources (or both) are too gossipy. I point out that ] interview, whether a video or not, is a reliable source. ] news is also a reliable source, whether gossipy or not. How is it better to remove information about ] having dated Sophia Bush simply because you find it "too gossipy"? ] (]) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
And just to be clear, I am not against your other edits and removal of material from this article, and I left those edits intact. It is just the removal of Lafferty and Bush having dated that I objected to, which is why I reinstated it. It is not simply speculation. It was difficult for ] and Bush to be on set together not only initially because they were previously married...but also because she was now dating one of his co-stars; his speaking out about this is what is in the article. Yes, he was the one to confirm the romance between those two, but I doubt he was lying, and those two have not denied it. ] (]) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Jenrette == | |||
I wouldn't care to argue with Sainty on genealogy - the guy knows what he's talking about. It may not technically meet the standards of a reliable source, but I would bet money that the information about the Boncompagni on his website is accurate. (I'm familiar with him because I used to read and occasionally post on alt.talk.royalty, where he was a regular. The guy has idiosyncratic opinions on some subjects, but he knows his shit). At any rate, we see the entry on Prince Nicolo Boncompagni-Ludovisi, presumably the gentleman in question. Van de Pas's site is obviously self-published, but is generally pretty reliable, and most importantly, he lists his sources. Van de Pas provides the ''Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels'' and ''The Royal House of Stuart'' as his sources - those are both reliable sources on royal genealogy which ought to be discoverable in many research libraries. We should try to check them out ourselves, if we can, but I would be very surprised if they turned out to say anything different from Van de Pas' or Sainty's sites. The man's existence, descent from the reigning houses of Piombino, and so forth, seem to be easily discoverable. The marriage to Jenrette should also be sourced, though. I can understand that people doing obnoxious self-promotion on their own Misplaced Pages article is very annoying, and wish you luck in combatting such silliness, but I think this particular battle is an unnecessary one. ] (]) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:OK, I think we're pretty much in agreement; there's a sourcing problem related to the marriage, we just have different views as to how to describe the problem. Where I come from is -- There certainly is a head of the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family out there, and Rita Jenrette has married someone who she claims to be that family patriarch (or whatever the term is). I think that, for BLP purposes, we ought to have a reliable source documenting that the husband is who she says he is. All we need is one decent press report, one reputable magazine story, one TV clip, whatever. I don't understand why that's proved to be so difficult. If any of my responses to you have come across as excessively cranky, I'll apologize; after repeated snarky comments from Jenrette and her friends I've become thin-skinned. (Long before the current dispute, I'd scrubbed Jenrette's article of some really unfair stuff, like the categorization of her as an "adult model" in the company of various pornstars and sexploitation film actresses, to little thanks.) And I suspect the Anne Hathaway-boyfriend debacle is in the back of my mind as well. ] (]) 05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::There is , which appears to be a perfume-related webzine. My basic problem here is that we seem to be using the reliable sources rule to exclude information that common sense tells us is almost certainly true - we have ("non-reliable," but cited to reliable sources) genealogical sources that tell us of Prince Nicolò Boncompagni-Ludovisi and his descent from the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family that ruled Piombino in the eighteenth century; we have a (probably "non-reliable," but hard to see a reason to think it would be inaccurate) perfume industry blog that shows a photograph of a gentleman of the same name with Jenrette, describes him as a prince, and talks about how he revived some ancient perfume recipe for his wife; and we have the ("non-reliable") personal website of Ms. Jenrette talking about her marriage to the guy. Maybe none of this meets Misplaced Pages's reliable sources/BLP standards, but simply as a person looking at what evidence is available, the truth here seems pretty obvious. BLP policy is designed to protect the privacy of living subjects of articles and not expose ourselves to libel suits. Using the BLP policy to refuse to say what we think is probably true, and instead insist on an equally unsourced version which pisses off the LP in question seems like an odd way to apply the policy. What, in the version you reverted, did you specifically object to? Calling the guy a prince? Saying that he's descended from the Boncompagni-Ludovisi family of Piombino? The latter is almost certainly true, and could be confirmed by looking at the genealogy sites I referenced above. If you want to remove all reference to the Piombino business at all, that might be reasonable, at least until we can confirm it, but I don't see how saying that he "claims" to be descended from the family is anything but a weasel word to imply that he is lying. ] (]) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Email == | |||
Hi there. I have sent you an email. ] (]) 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Angelo Moore == | |||
Hello, How do we stop people from changing his page? I know that it can be done. Angelo is getting very upset seeing the page change every other month, he wants to be the one with the updates on his life. So please stop making changes. | |||
Many Thanks, | |||
Susette Ashley Garrett/aka Mrs. Angelo Moore | |||
(] (]) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)) | |||
:The blunt general answer is that article subjects can't control the content of the relevant articles, and clearly can't insist on including unsourced content mentioning other, private, people by name. The blunt question arising out of this post and your editing is why do you identify yourself as Mrs Moore here, but insist on inserting statements into the article that you are divorced from Mr. Moore, and that he is "dating" someone else. If you or the subject have serious complaints about the correctness of statements in the article, you should familiarize yourself with ] and follow the procedure suggested there. If you or he want certain conent added to the article, you should become familiar with ], ], ], ], and ]. ] (]) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Thanks == | |||
Thank you for the backup help on articles such as ] and ]. I know that you did not decide to watch these articles just to help me out per say, but to rather keep them clean, but the additional help is appreciated. These vandals and other unhelpful or unsourced (or both types of) additions wear me down. ] (]) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
==So you want to delete the article about actors considered for the role of Batman== | |||
If you really, really have a problem with this Batman list, then I suppose that the same can be said about the one about James Bond: | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_actors_considered_for_the_James_Bond_character | |||
] (]) 11:48 p.m., 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Angelo Moore == | |||
This is the second email to you about Angelo Moore. Please stop removing the information on his page. I read the Biographies of living person page and the things on his page are relevant and verifiable. He asked for those things to be on his page, due to the fact that many of his songs have to do with marriage, his child, and what makes him him. His fans know him for those things. So that would make the things you continue to delete important to the article. Angelo checked his page because someone stated that the information had been removed once again by you. My next step is to report this to the Biographies of living persons notice board if you do not stop. Yes, I am his ex-spouse that is working with him and his management company to make sure inforamtion about him is correct. I check with Angelo before anything goes up or comes down from his page. If need be I will have Mr. Moore contact[REDACTED] himself in the event this email is not enough for you to stop making edits to his page. | |||
Many Thanks, | |||
Susette Ashley Garrett- Moore <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:No. Read my answer to your first post. The article subject does not control the contents of the article, and no one -- not the subject, not the subject's spouse, not the subject's ex-spouse, not ] -- is allowed to introduce completely unsourced claims about the personal life details of living persons, especially otherwise private persons. If the information has been published in reliable, independent third-party sources, it may be included in the article with appropriate references. But not just on an editor's say-so. ] (]) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Douay Martyrs == | |||
Hello there! Couldn't help but notice the edit you made to this artical. Hate to seem rude, but I had just re-edited that particular bit back in after an unregistered user deleted it without comment! I'm not as experienced with wiki as yourself. I'm curious why the edit was counted as cleanup? Many thanks :) ] (]) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
FYI. This RFC is based on, ] which you participated in. ] (]) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Crystal Harris == | |||
FYI, WeKinglyPigs.com has been used for a few years now for info on Playboy Playmates. Most of the information comes directly from the issues of the magazine themselves. The woman who runs the site works in the library at the University of Chicago. See ] under the useful links section. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
Since you participated in ], which was closed as relist, you may be interested in ]. ] (]) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Do not remove plot summary == | |||
You removed it again with no discussion in the talk page. But you did have a one line edit summary. Removing it entirely is wrong. I will work on it to address your concerns. Specifically, I will remove most of the description like a man's cock in her vagina doggie style, and the like. One scene won an award so some detail is necessary but will be done tastefully. ] (]) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Do I know you? == | |||
Hello HB. Just wanted to ask if you used to use this same name 'Hullaballoo' to post on the discussion forums in tennis.com a while back. I was a poster there too but have not posted in a long long while. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Not me, sorry. ] (]) 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Dimitri The Lover == | |||
First off HB, thanks for monitoring the very controversial Misplaced Pages entry for Dimitri The Lover. My name is Shawn and I am his Manager. Please note that when I beefed up Dimitri's entry with additional information, I was fair and DID NOT remove anything that was derogatory, even though much of it is inflammatory and borderline defamatory. I only removed gross innacuracies and reworded misleading sentences. I have provided references for all additions. I may do a bit more rewording for grammar and sentence structure (I'm a real stickler for that) and may also add in more content. My IP Address is static and if you see anything from it please know that it is me. Also, I sometimes use internet cafes, so if any other edits that seem reasonable are made from other IP's and I have noted them to be made by myself, then please provide lattitude. You can see that I have undone some vandalism in the past. I would appreciate you helping us keep a keen eye on this most controversial BLP to ensure no further vandalism. We are in the post-production phase of a Hollywood documentary about Dimitri The Lover, word is slowly leaking out about the "voicemails" being, let's just say, not what they seem, and expect a lot of traffic to this Misplaced Pages entry. If you need to get in touch with me personally, please go to www.dimitrithelover.com and use our contact, noting that it is for me. I prefer not giving out my direct email here. Thanks once again for being vigilant! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== Noel Ashman's page == | |||
Hi, | |||
I am quite new to editing on[REDACTED] but I know and understand how to cite references. I would like to understand why you keep removing the content thats been put up in the past. Especially when a lot of it has to do with movies <br />that he has been a part of that are plainly referenced on imdb.com. If you consider that site not to be reputable then please let me know of a better site than that one because I can't think of any other. Other major hollywood personalities<br /> have used imdb.com for sourcing. It is wasting my time and yours to keep taking it down and putting it up again. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span> | |||
] (]) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Rascal Flatts == | |||
The CMT and Rolling Stone listings are only directories. I haven't found anything on CMT or Lyric Street that even announced the release of this album; albums by notable acts aren't inherently notable. <span style="color:green">Ten Pound Hammer</span>, his otters and a clue-bat • <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup> 16:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I pointed out those easy-to-find pages in commenting on your earlier claims that the album was a blatant hoax. It doesn't given one much confidence in the other search results you report. ] (]) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
{{tb|Stifle|Eugene_F._Lally}} | |||
== Deanna Brooks == | |||
Ok, I'm going to try and do what Wiki says, talk this through and assume good faith on everyone’s part. This picture is NOT Deanna Brooks. I've known of Deanna Brooks for years, I've exchanged emails with her, I'm a friend on hers on Myspace and Facebook and I can tell you with absolute certainty...the picture is NOT her. I contacted the person who posted it and told him the exact same thing I'm telling you. You can check out her official website, her Myspace page, her Facebook page, her Twitter page, her IMDB entry or just Google her. The women in this picture is very tanned, Deanna Brooks is fair skinned, always has been, the women pictured has breast implants, Deanna Brooks does not. What is the purpose of constantly adding a photo which is NOT her, why continue to make her entry so glaringly inaccurate? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Well, whoever you are, given that photos of the same model wearing the same clothing at the same event are available on multiple websites, credited to a different photographer, all identified as Deanna Brooks, the identification given by the photographer who's supplied many images to Misplaced Pages without apparent controversy sure appears to be reliable. Women in her line of work refurbish themselves rather frequently. ] (]) 04:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== FYI == | |||
] - ] (]) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Halloween cheer! == | ||
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]] | |||
{{Center|'''''{{resize|187%|Happy ]!}}'''''}} | |||
Thanks; I'm at 3RR! Looks like you're going to have to find yourself a partner soon...maybe ] is around. Good luck, ] (]) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
'''Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:<br>Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Misplaced Pages, and have a happy and enjoyable ]!'''<br> {{spaced ndash}} –] • ] 23:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
<br><br>{{Center|<small>Send Halloween cheer by adding {{tls|Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages of people you'd like to send this to with a friendly message.</small>}} | |||
</div> | |||
:*On an unrelated note you really should archive your talkpage, If there was a Guinness Book of Worlds Records for the longest and biggest talkpage you sure as hell would win it! :) –] • ] 23:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
==]== | |||
Hello! Fixed the article, added a source to confirm my edits. | |||
Cheers! | |||
== ] == | |||
==Greg Fitzsimmons== | |||
Some of your edits are being discussed here: I thought I should alert you just in case you didn't see them on your own so that you would have an opportunity to respond as well. Hope all is well! ] (]) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I'm not convinced of passing A7 without the groups having notability, but I see you already renominated with G12. This piece should go. --] (]) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
==IMDb references== | |||
Is the IMDb reference in this article - ] - acceptable IYHO? Thanks ] (]) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Even if it's acceptable, whih I greatly doubt, a Google Book search turns up more appropriate sources . This might also be helpful . ] (]) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
How about here: ]? ] (]) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Here the imdb page isn't used as a reference, just as an external link. But it looks really dubious to me, since it appears to be user-submitted original research and opinion. There should be much better sources out there for anything that might be referenced to it. ] (]) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
And here: ] (ref 15)? ] (]) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Here? ] ] (]) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
==Noel Ashman's Page== | |||
per | |||
Hi, I was following up on the message I left a few days ago and still did not see a detailed response to it. I would really like to fix the page so that it is acceptable by Misplaced Pages standards and would really appreciate some detailed feedback. Thank you for your time. | |||
1. Book listing at amazon and a review from a christian website | |||
] | |||
2. Nada | |||
3. Nada | |||
4. nada | |||
5. Nada | |||
and please archive that talk page :/ ] (]) 21:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Ref update == | |||
== ] == | |||
Thanks for the improved reference on ]! As a result, I spent some more time working on the paragraph (for example, I noticed Darren Stein's name was misspelled). I see you're pretty much a Wiki black-belt, so I hope you think I've done a good job. Thanks again for looking out for me! ] (]) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Did you read the article? She was an author who was very conscious about her privacy and hid behind several pseudonyms. She had (and still has) millions of fans all over the world who never knew that they are reading books in different genres from the same author. She wrote ~ 200 books over 60 years. That is why there are so many different publicity images of her - across the different genres and over the years. How did she manage this fantastic output? By taking her typewriter with her wherever she went. Including images of her publicity stills and her photograph with her typewrite significantly enhances the reader's understanding of her life. | |||
Do NOT delete these images again or your behavior will tip over into vandalism. ] (]) 00:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
:All of that is more than adequately conveyed by text alone. And don't pretend that disagreeing with you in a content dispute is vandalism. ] (]) 00:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Really, text alone is sufficient to show what a person really looks like? Why did we invent photography? Have you ever taken a photo in your life? I repeat - do NOT vandalize the page with your nonsensical edits!!! ] (]) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== |
==New Jersey seal copyrights== | ||
The 3 seals that you removed from my page are not non-free images, they are public domain, as per multiple court rulings in the United States, both by district, and federal judges. In fact, one of those 3 seals were directly involved in a court ruling. | |||
I noticed you removed alot of content from ], perhaps an AfD is in order? ] (]) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I think the article subject is notable; but it's hard to get someone familiar with the field to work on the article when Rosen herself comes in regularly, wipes out the text, and pastes in a promotional (auto)biography. Needs time for things to settle down. ] (]) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for your input. ] (]) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
According to section 2B of the Lanham Act: | |||
== ] == | |||
"No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it-- | |||
(b)Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof." | |||
I don not understand why we can not use her real name. Several porn actresses have their real names in the articles, like ]. It was even sourced. ] (]) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html | |||
:In general, birthnames/real names for pornographic performers must be reliably sourced, and neither IMDB nor retailer/VOD sites are considered reliable sources. See, for example, the comments from ]. ] is something of a special case; she claims to be performing under her real name, so any claims that she isn't are subject to ], and there is a strong argument that she'd have been sued into the ground by that well-known supermodel if there's any doubt about it. I don't know how to resolve this case, so I've left it alone. In general, these real name IDs are usually sourced to mainstream news sources, because the issue is sensitive. See ], for example, or ]. (And while looking for examples of good cites, I found and removed another IMDB-only citation, there's still cleanup left to do.) ] (]) 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
When a case arose in Houston on the usage of a county seal, a federal court ruled (15 U.S.C. § 1052(b)) that county seals can not be registered for trademark, or copyright. | |||
== Leah Hackett == | |||
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1356.Opinion.9-26-2013.1.PDF | |||
This ruling states that county seals, and other government symbols are not protected by copyright, or trademark. Under Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, it would appear that the 3 seals you removed from my profile are, infact, free. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
How does who she previously dated hold no encyclopedic significance? I've seen plenty of GAs. It's not gossip either as it's clearly sourced. I'd also like to remind you of the ] rule. --<b>]</b><sup>]]</sup> 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
== |
== FYI mentioned your comments == | ||
Hi, I'd appreciate you leaving the information about Nina Carter's cameo in American Werewolf in London in her article. The information is accurate, it's not contentious, it's not BLP and you keep removing it without leaving notes. If you refuse to desist, I would at least like your guidance on how we can arrive at a mutually acceptable scenario, rather than the unilateral removal of accurate information? Much obliged! 17.22 28 Sep 09 (BST) | |||
:Unsourced, speculative "information" isn't allowed in a ]. Unreferenced quotations generally aren't allowed at all. There's never been an explanation as to how/why details about a film cameo bear on her real life, especially since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer. When multiple experienced editors repeatedly remove the same content with the same explanation ("unsourced"), that should be a signal that the content shouldn't be added back without reliable sourcing.] (]) 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
FYI mentioned your comments at ], please feel free to participate there. — ''']''' (]) 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Your point: 'since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer'. I have got a single clue what you're alluding to here. However, there's no explanantion as to how why details about a film cameo bear on Ms Carter's life. It is relevant to her career though, and accurate, and her cameo is now mentioned solely as being in the film, without the copy that seems to so aggrieve your sensibilities. Your style of editing seems to others to be overly fussy but I'm hoping that the current article meets with your exacting standards. | |||
== ] == | |||
Please leave it alone now. Thanks. 20:24 BST 28/9/09 | |||
:Why did you not provide a proper reference rather than argue and edit war with him over this? The ] is on the person who adds any information. If anything is so accurate and relevant, it would be reported by third party reliable sources. I easily found a reference using google books. ] (]) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Please demonstrate the claim of notability in this article. It's a simple unsourced statement that the company exists. As such it clearly meets the requirements of a db-a7. ] does not take precedence. Four different editors have now put the a7 speedy requerst on this article. This is not the first article to be created in the last few days that referenced the same company that was put up for speedy, and the article creator is already blocked. Furthermore, your summary description of the editor who put this article up for speedy likely qualifies as a personal attack. I suggest hat you revert yourself. ] (]) 19:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
I didn't add the information. 22.24 BST 28/9/09. | |||
::No. None of that justifies speedying an article after its creator writes a single sentence. A7 is not mandatory, but following WP:BEFORE is prescribed by deletion policy. I believed that editors who make a point of racing to tag articles, especially by new editors, without having thne simple decency to let their creators complete them are pestilential, a negative to the project, and such behaviornis accurately characterized as abusive. Defending and enabling them is hardly better. ] (]) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:What do you call these edits by your ip address? Even if you are not the original author, you still added the information back without the appropriate citations in your edit war. ] (]) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I have userfied the article. The editor is welcome to create a reliably sourced article that demonstrates notability once he returns. ] (]) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Shall I consider than an attack on all 3 editors who restored the speedy as well? ] (]) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::And your opinion does not excuse your attack on the original a7 requester. The request was nothing out of the ordinary. ] (]) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::Did you really just argue that abusive editing behavior doesn't justify its description as abusive? ] (]) 19:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::No, I stated that I didn't think your opinion was correct that that the tagging of this article with a db-a7 justified you calling the editor abusive. and since you've now labelled me as borderline trolling for having a polite conversation, I'll be unwatching this thread. Please don't post on my talkpage. ] (]) 19:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
I call them 'reverting vandalism'. 09.11 BST 29/9.09 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Call it whatever you want but continuing to edit war in defiance of policy will get you blocked. ] (]) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
I am not sure I understand why the ] article was not deleted. While as an administrator I know you have a lot of leeway on the decisions you make; I just wanted to show where I was coming from. I did a google search on Cam30, there are two hits for this artist and cam30world.com, which seems to be the artists own website. In addition this article was deleted back in November. At that time the editor was also issued instructions on the guide to creating new articles and the article wizard. I try to be very careful in the articles I nominate for speedy delete. I have made a few errors and I am learning. If I knew why you decided to keep this article it would help me in the future. Thanks, ]<sub>]]</sub> 17:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
I imagine it will get you blocked also, am I right? ] 22.40 BST 29/9/09 | |||
:First of all, I'm not an admin, although I certainly take enough abuse here to make people think I'm one. Any editor (except the actual article creator) can decline a speedy. Second, as I stated clearly in the edit summary, your tagging was far too hasty. The article was created only three minutes before you tagged it, and the creator was obviously still working on it one minute before you tagged it. There was no way to tell what the article creator's finished product would have been, and even in its current state it includes a minimal assertion of significance via the subject's involvement with an apparently notable creative work. Overly aggressive and hasty tagging like this damages Misplaced Pages by driving away new, potentially productive contributors and is not balanced by the minimal damage caused by allowing mostly harmless articles on possibly non-notable subjects to remain on the project briefly. There is even a consensus developed template, ], to warn repeat offenders to stop such tagging. Third, the prior speedy deletion of an article is in no way precedential, and does not prevent anyone, even the creator of the deleted version, from attempting to write a new and more satisfactory article. Attempts to correct prior failures are encouraged here, not subjected to cursory deletion. ] (]) 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not the one edit warring over this so the answer is no. ] (]) 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for the reply. I was unaware of UW_Hasty. I will be more carefull in the future. | |||
==New articles on incidents called terrorism== | |||
Edit warring will get you blocked, yes. Save the inarticulate and thinly veiled threats for someone who cares for your opinion. Thanks for putting the citation up though! ] 13.38 BST 30/9/09 | |||
"We ought to adopt a hard-and-fast rule that every incident treated as a terrorist killing by reliable media and receiving substantial initial coverage is deemed to satisfy requirements for an article." How would one go about making such a policy effective?] (]) 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== |
== Nomination of ] for deletion == | ||
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from ] to inform you the PROD template you added to ] has been removed. It was removed by ] with the following edit summary '<nowiki>(rm prod, not sure about this one)</nowiki>'. Please consider ] with Garion96 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current ]. Thank you, ] (]) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) <small>(])</small> 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
The article will be discussed at ] 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. | |||
{{talkback|Blanchardb}} | |||
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.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Re: edit conflict == | |||
:I've restored the article, but I've also nominated it for deletion since it was a csd-tagged article. This is not meant as a punishment or criticism, merely an attempt to allow the community to decide the matter instead of leaving the issue of deletion in the hands of one administrator. ] (]) 18:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
I opened a discussion ] --<span style="background:#CC1010;color:#FFA0A0">''' Blanchardb''' </span>-<small><sup><span style="color:#A62428">]•]•]</span></sup></small>- timed 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for the input at the afd. On too many occasions the contributors do not weigh in there, and as a result the article get re-deleted. I'll be honest and say that I had forgotten that there were notability guidelines specifically for people in the entertainment industry, so I will need to reread that material again to better remember it in the future for moments like this. ] (]) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Winger/Polanski == | |||
== Your ''analysis is completely and utterly incorrect''... :) == | |||
Hi HW - I think the issue on ] goes beyond sourcing - see my comment on ] and see if you agree or disagree and perhaps we can get a dialog going rather than what's been happening. Thanks! <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
The section title is meant in jest because of one particular comment you made on the ], "Scalhotrod and I really don't like each other, and I'd be inclined to stay out of it if it weren't so wrongheaded and disruptive." | |||
== Gerry Ryan == | |||
Quite simply, '''I do not dislike you'''. Though I can understand why you may feel this way and, for that matter, there have been several instances where I could have responded in a "]" manner to many of your edits and comments, but have not for this reason. | |||
So a story in the two major newspapers and from the national broadcaster in a country where public figures will sue you ( and done so in the past ) for getting the slightest thing wrong when reporting on them is not RS .Good Grief .] (]) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Please pay attention to the details. No matter who publishes them, rumors are generally not encyclopedic. Articles that simply report that rumors are circulating are not considered reliable sources for articles which assert or otherwise indicate that the rumors are true. ] is quite clear that the central concern is to "get the article right," not to republish speculative, "titillating" claims made elsewhere, whether they're grounds for lawsuits or not. ] . | |||
As much as your impression is that we are at odds with each other, my opinion of you is that your actions serve to make me a better Editor and a more knowledgeable and experienced member of this online community. And for that I am thankful of your attitude and efforts. | |||
== ] == | |||
This is a direct recreation (I think word-for-word, but as I'm not an admin I can't see the text of the deleted version) of an article ] which was deleted. | |||
From my perspective, the only way you could have any detrimental affect on my Misplaced Pages activities would be to cease your interaction with me altogether. But I don't see that happening, I think in some way you enjoy our interaction as frustrating for you as it may come across. | |||
The article was created, discussed at length for a week, and then deleted on the 18th Sept. On the 24th, it was recreated and speedily deleted: | |||
Take care and Happy Holidays to you, --] ] ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
* 18:23, 24 September 2009 ] (] | ]) deleted "]" (Recreation of a page that was ] per a ] (])) | |||
* 01:56, 18 September 2009 ] (] | ]) deleted "]" (]) | |||
== ] == | |||
I am curious as to why you have declined a speedy deletion, as this is an article which was decided should not be in Misplaced Pages, and from what I can see there is no difference between the current article and the deleted version. | |||
Hi, there. This article is an autobiography by someone who had evidently confused Misplaced Pages with ''LinkedIn'' or ''Who's Who''. Speedying it seemed the most likely way to keep her from following up by posting her résumé. Cheers. ] (]) 17:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
I thought I would ask you before I put this up for deletion again, in case you were not aware of the recent history of this article (did you read the AfD discussion before removing the Speedy Delete notice, for example?) | |||
:Speedy deletion is not to be used to prevent things you think might happen. Judging by the lengthy and well-referenced article on the French wikipedia, this person is clearly notable, and appears rather unlikely to need to advertise herself on en-wiki. Try to follow ], and remember that '''it is almost never appropriate to A7 an article less than one minute after a new editor has begun to work on it!''' ] (]) 17:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Hi again, HW. Not to belabour the point unduly, but I note that the French Misplaced Pages article is largely the work of one IP editor (one who persisted over other editors' objections that "Ce n'est pas un CV") and is likely an undetected autobiography/vanity page. Creating an autobiography on English Misplaced Pages is also strongly discouraged; and this one made no claim about the importance of the subject, so I believe it fell within A7. Moreover, the editor has thankfully decided not to expand her autobiographical article, and as such it's now a BLP lacking a single source. ] (]) 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, given that you tagged it only seconds after the creator began writing it, it's hardly surprising that the creator was discouraged from continuing immediately. This particular type of tagging is not consider good behavior, and there's even a standard template discouraging it. ] COI alone is not grounds for deletion, let alone speedy deletion, and the subject's academic credentials are more than enough to survive A7. If the article ends up including overly promotional text, all that would be required is cleanup via routine editing. ] (]) 21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, maybe you're right about the hastiness. As for the noteworthiness of the subject, I tend to go with the guideline: "if your life and achievements are... notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged: I guess I strongly discouraged one. Ten lashes with a wet noodle. Anyway, happy editing! ] (]) 23:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== AfD's == | |||
I will give you a little while to respond, but by tonight if I have not heard from you, I will proceed to put this up for deletion again. | |||
Hey Hullaballoo! | |||
Regards, -- ''']''' (], ]) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Just wanted to say I don't have an issue with you reverting my AfD closures. I do prefer being contacted prior and being allowed the chance to do so myself (of which I'd do without hesitation). Thanks though! <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Your 3RR complaint about ] == | |||
:I commented at your talk page while you were posting here. I was particularly concerned by your lending credibility to the accusations of bad faith by Rebecca1990, who has a track record of casting aspersions (and worse) to gain advantages in AFD discussions (not to suggest you in any way share in such behavior). ] (]) 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
::I try to stay impartial and give equal weight to all (within reason) - I don't know of her track record and I generally don't do an in depth check when deciding the validity of !votes :) Thanks for the heads up on her though - I'll go do a little bit of digging now. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Notice from ] == | |||
I don't see four reverts, either by you or Krakatoa. The that you saved makes no mention of the Polanski issue at all. Do you think it deserves no coverage in the article? Due to some recent improvements, the current version seems more neutral. So all in all, there no longer is a huge problem. I'm not seeing either edit warring or BLP at the moment, except perhaps there are too many references for people being annoyed at Applebaum over the Polanski thing, and this could be slightly over the top. If you still have reservations, maybe they can be explored on the article talk, and the 3RR report could be closed. ] (]) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 20:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I agree with your sentiment against automatic archiving, but do you mind if I just toss everything older than a year on an archive subpage? I've done it before for other people, it's generally harmless, it helps if you don't want the hassle of doing it yourself, and it'll keep the pesky people off your back for some time. ;) Let me know! <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺ · ] · ]</span> 22:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:32, 9 January 2023
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Vertium and done 14:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Francisco Group
Hello. I have declined your speedy deletion request at Francisco Group. The problem is that WP:CSD#G10 covers unreferenced articles only. Our speedy deletion criteria also say "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum."
I suggest you create an AfD for this article and present your evidence that it is a hoax. Thank you. Chillum 17:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Miss Grand International
It should be a good idea when you check the first version of this cut and paste thingy, created after a refused undeletion request: The Banner talk 23:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I don't care what the page looked like eight months ago. When you tagged it for deletion this morning, it wasn't substantially identical to the deleted version, and therefore wasn't subject to speedy deletion as a repost of a deleted article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Case Opened: Banning Policy
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon 12:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Jade Cole
Thank you for your recent prod removal on Jade Cole (model). Might you have any way to delete the redirect that ends up on the AMTM Cycle 6 article when people type in ‘Jade Cole’? I feel at this point it should go to her article, and then the (model) on her name can be dropped. There’s only one person on Misplaced Pages with that name. Thank you so much if that’s something you know how to do; I don’t. --Kbabej (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Linking, Not Spamming
I'm trying to add links with more information about some films and you keep deleting them. Please stop. Cashiers (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Cashiers
- No. Your only edits in about two years are rapid-fire addition of links to the same non-notable podcast. I'm not the only editor who's removed one of your links. It's evident that your purpose is promotion of the podcast. If you continue, the links will again be removed and your editing privileges are likely to be suspended. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was googling and found that you have quite a reputation of being a bit prickly. This seems to be in keeping with your personality and tactics. I won't ask you to stop being a jerk because I think that's just your nature. Cashiers (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Cashiers
Rebecca Bardoux
Hello Hullabalo can you please explain where you are getting you information about Rebecca Bardoux in regards to "unsupported by cited source; one performance does not demonstrate an occupation." Thank you Mosmos69
Please don't edit war
Please do not edit war as you did here. Please follow WP:BRD. Also, a discussion that is two days old can hardly be called "cold".- MrX 17:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Removing speedy
Ok before you start yelling at me, I do think you're right, I think I may have been confused. Does the speedy refer to socks? Since they can't edit after being banned/blocked, then they'd have to create another user to do the editing and then in comes the speedy request? Yes? Because in that case then I've been right in the past but since Fairyspit was the sockpuppet he wasn't blocked until later and doesn't qualify. Yes?LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- That's basically it. G5 doesn't apply to articles created before the block/ban is imposed. I posted a longer explanation on your talk page before I saw your post here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The Chronicles of Prydain
Hi. What is your criterion for restoring articles on Prydain fictional elements--that is, I understand, restoring articles rather than redirects as the targets of navbox {{The Chronicles of Prydain}}. Has there been any related discussion?
I remarked two weeks ago Talk:Gurgi#Hasty merge, thought I might do more about it but didn't, and updated today mentioning you. Thanks. --P64 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- For the Prydain-related material, it's pretty much as I come across it. Alexander may be the most-written-about American fantasy author of the "modern" period who predates the Tolkien boom, and the immense amount of scholarly writing that's indexed online demonstrates that the content suppression described as redirects and merges was grossly inappropriate. A fair amount of the commentary (purely "scholarly" and otherwise) addresses the relationships between Alexander's work and Celtic mythology, particularly the mabinogi, with discussion of individual characters, so I'm confident that the elimination of the character articles was clearly wrong. (In practice, it also violated the ban on "fait accompli" editing in the relevant Arbcomm case, but I'm restoring articles in careful stages to avoid similar complaints.) The editor responsible also targeted article related to Shakespeare, Orwell, Heinlein, Carroll, LeGuin and George R.R. Martin, so it's pretty clear this is POINTy disruption. Pruning gamecruft is one thing, but going out of his way to gut coverage of writers with massive critical coverage is quite another. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. Only one now remains a redirect (Prydain character redirects to lists). When you "restore" (that is your Gwystyl edit summary), do you literally mark in the Revision history (example) a span of latest edits back to the version to be restored, and select "undo"?
- Oops, I'm two minutes past my witching hour. Good night. --P64 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Curtis Books
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Curtis Books requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Yunshui 水 12:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Confused
Did you mean to accept these five edits from IP 119.154.13.20? The edits reintroduced the same unsourced BLP-violating material I added the protection to prevent, including flip-flopping DOB and unsupported religious affiliation. I'm assuming it was a misclick, as that's out of character of you. --Jezebel'sPonyo 22:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Did I mean to? Yes/ Was it the right call? Apparently not. I'm so used to dealing with horrid BLP violations in South Asian celebrity BLPs that I let a less obvious one go right by me. Sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Pakistani actor articles are being bombarded with a wave of promotional sock/meat edits (which I'm fairly convinced come from a paid editing ring). Given the endless rapid-cycling IP ranges and ISPs available in the region blocking is toothless, so semi-protection is the only way to limit the disruption. The BLP issues aren't as egregious as some cases, but the marketing group is unrelenting in their attempts to insert the contested DOBs, religion and puffery in the articles. --Jezebel'sPonyo 17:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tera Patrick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMT. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Caitlin pascoe
A tag has been placed on Caitlin pascoe, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Poudar
We do. If you are an admin then check the history of that and of articles created by, for example, Buddhakahika (talk · contribs) and their socks. If quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck and, believe me, I know these ducks. In fact, the only reason that the article has not been subjected to a create-protect is because it acts as a honeypot. Please can you review the SPI archive. - Sitush (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Rebecca Bardoux
Hi, notifying all previous talk participants of an RfC: Talk:Rebecca_Bardoux#RfC: Should the article mention her comedy career? -- GreenC 13:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Christine Shevchenko
This sounds silly BUT if I only replace the article text then it won't count towards articles I have created, it'll just look like the article was already there and I added to the text...so...yea lol LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy removal of Garage Beat 66 series
While this was taken to AfD, it strikes me that your declining the speedy on grounds of "creative works not eligible" is dead wrong. Try WP:A9, which specifically refers to musical recordings. I'd refresh my recollection of CSD, in your shoes. Ravenswing 04:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was nominated under A7, and creative works are expressly excluded from A7. It strikes me that the subject was ineligible for A9, because it's a series of releases, not an individual recording; and because the compilations include tracks from notable artists. (A9 doesn't appropriately address compilation albums anyway). Plus there's coverage out there, some of the albums have charted on CMJ, Sundazed does a lot of notable archival work and I think there are enough legitimate GNG issues to warrant a discussion. Yes, the article is lousy, as it stands, but it's the first article from an inexperienced user, speedied 11 minutes after creation, and that's bad pracxtice, too. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Edmund F. Brennan
Not a question of notability - straw man argument of yours. I will not restore an attack page - ask some other admin, but restoration restores all the history including the attack which would be a WP:BLP violation but who knows some admin would probably ignore BLP for you - Not I. If you want an article about the guy, please write one fully sourced and not an attack page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Mass redirects and deletion of content by TTN
You apparently have spent a lot of time and effort dealing with the mass redirect and deletion efforts of User:TTN. I had to track back when I discovered this edit that apparently got reverted. But you did not go back. Why? Is this legit or did you just not notice it? Looking at this guys's history, I see a couple thousand such moves, not all of them reverted. You are much better up to speed on this; Should all of these get reverted? If so, we should ask a Bot be created. Otherwise it seems like an effort requiring a team of users to go back and analyze each edit. Trackinfo (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- That one just got by me; I've fixed it now, thanks. TTN's edits, unfortunately, need to be reviewed rather than bulk-reverted. Some really weren't controversial (overdetailed coverage of RPG elements); some dubious (TV episode removal targeting high-profile creators, particularly George RR Martin; some clearly atrocious (coverage of literature where extensive coverage/criticism exists, including at one point Shakespeare). TTN also quite often didn't follow WP:BEFORE, sometimes never even checking the articles he redirected (most flagrantly, as I recall, redirecting a business to a list of Transformers characters because they shared a fairly common name; and redirecting a noteworthy, award-winning sf novella to a TV series which adapted it years later.) There were at least two Arbcom cases, lots of edit wars, and lots of controversy. I've been trying to work my way down from the most inappropriate edits until there's serious debate, starting with the literature-related ones, the mistargeted ones (remarkably frequent), and the boilerplate nothing-but-plot rationales that didn't match the articles. Arbcom quite prudently established a "fait accompli" rule to prohibit undiscussed mass edits made faster than they can be intelligently reviewed, and I'm not going to push that limit in cleaning up the mess, even though TTN did in creating it. Hope that's helpful. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please direct me to that rule. I've run into mass editors of several different colors. I know they could not possibly be giving due consideration to their edits and that would give me a legitimate policy to stop them, by ARB force if necessary. On WP I feel like I have to be a lawyer to keep up on policy for all this crap other irresponsible editors pull. BTW, I noticed TTN suddenly stopped in early August. Was he stopped or did he just suddenly come to his senses? Trackinfo (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- The principle is here: WP:FAITACCOMPLI. It was established in this ArbCom case where, not coincidentally, sanctions were levied on TTN. My impression is that lately TTN stops editing once other editors notice what he's doing and object, then returns weeks or months later in hopes of flying beneath the radar. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please direct me to that rule. I've run into mass editors of several different colors. I know they could not possibly be giving due consideration to their edits and that would give me a legitimate policy to stop them, by ARB force if necessary. On WP I feel like I have to be a lawyer to keep up on policy for all this crap other irresponsible editors pull. BTW, I noticed TTN suddenly stopped in early August. Was he stopped or did he just suddenly come to his senses? Trackinfo (talk) 23:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Black pied cattle
Hallo,
because of invalid speedy argument you request an RFD for the redirects Black Pied cattle, Black Pied (cattle) and Black pied (cattle). How do I have to do that? What argument shall I present you?
These three are no reasonable redirects to the German Black Pied Dairy. That came to exist because of MOS:ORGANISMS, Use natural disambiguation not parentheticals when possible, per WP:AT policy (and per article's only source) and same capitalization scheme as the other articles in this category-arguments. All without any reference, that these are proper names for the German Black Pied Dairy. I nearly unknown breed in the English World.
There are no redirects for Black cattle, White cattle, Red cattle. If you are asking for black pied cattle breeds, here are some, the list may not be complete. These are only the breeds with a "Black Pied"-name...
Ural Black Pied cattle Aosta Black Pied cattle Swiss Black Pied cattle Baltic Black Pied cattle Breton Black Pied cattle German Black Pied cattle Russian Black Pied cattle Beijing Black Pied cattle Siberian Black Pied cattle Estonian Black Pied cattle German Black Pied Dairy cattle Central Russian Black Pied cattle Belgian Black Pied Holstein cattle Czech Pied cattle Hungarian Pied cattle Slovakian Pied cattle
Thanks for your help. --PigeonIP (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if the above seems a bit abrupt. I am currently a bit touchy about some breed moves. --PigeonIP (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I can delete them as inappropriate redirects if there is nothing linked to them. Is that really what is wanted? Deb (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Deb: Yes, that is, what I am asking for. There are only 4 WP-links to Black Pied cattle. I was not sure if I am allowed or expected to correct them. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- All the links seem to be from talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages rather than articles, so I don't know that it is worth changing them. Deb (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Deb: My sense has been that there's some sort of a content dispute underlying this, which is why I suggested going to RFD when I declined the initial speedies. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. Deb (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Deb: My sense has been that there's some sort of a content dispute underlying this, which is why I suggested going to RFD when I declined the initial speedies. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- All the links seem to be from talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages rather than articles, so I don't know that it is worth changing them. Deb (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Deb: Yes, that is, what I am asking for. There are only 4 WP-links to Black Pied cattle. I was not sure if I am allowed or expected to correct them. --PigeonIP (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is no content dispute. --PigeonIP (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- And if: there is still the question: how to do it (simple)? --PigeonIP (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Removal of permitted logo from User:GeoffreyBH
I took care to note exactly why I had permission to use the logo, which had in any case been in common use since before my own period of office. The version you removed waa, in any event, my reconstruction from a monochrome logo. It was completely redrawn. Be all that as it may, simple good manners would have suggested at least contacting me before taking draconian action in pursuit of your personal agenda - whatever that may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Copyright violations are serious, removal notifications are not required, using someone else work, even if modified, without their permission is not allowed. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who took the trouble to read the tag would know that the use and the re-drawing were permitted in terms. Geoffrey BH 20:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs)
I would like to resolve this problem so that I may use mt logo without risk of improper deletion. If HW reads this, I would like to read his/her suggestion. Unfortunately, I'm not very sanguine because I read a long account of similar intervention. Misplaced Pages's DR process is attractive but I would like to solve the problem amicably. Geoffrey BH 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeoffreyBH (talk • contribs)
Please propose for deletion
If you insist, , please propose that template for deletion. It provides a visual summary of all objects in the Solar System that have been imaged up close. This is not possible without that image, and hence that template should else be deleted entirely. --JorisvS (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Please note that WP:NFCC#9 straightforwardly prohibits the use of nonfree images outside articlespace, including use in templates. Non-free content policy also does not make exceptions based on educational-use-only licenses. Using a nonfree file in a template is automatically detected and reported; even if I were to ignore it, another editor would soon repeat the removal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is stupid not to make a distinction between images that have no free license at all and those that are free-to-use for educational purposes. But okay, you're enforcing this without regard to specifics and who makes that template useless, so have the guts to take the next logical step: propose it for deletion! --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I recall, the NFC issue has arisen before w/r/t that template, and the resolution was simply to remove the affected entry, which I've now done. And the WMF makes the distinction you're upset about. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, that defeats the purpose of the template: to show all closely imaged objects. However, this way you gave me an idea how to salvage it: . --JorisvS (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I recall, the NFC issue has arisen before w/r/t that template, and the resolution was simply to remove the affected entry, which I've now done. And the WMF makes the distinction you're upset about. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is stupid not to make a distinction between images that have no free license at all and those that are free-to-use for educational purposes. But okay, you're enforcing this without regard to specifics and who makes that template useless, so have the guts to take the next logical step: propose it for deletion! --JorisvS (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Please consider archiving
My eyes! Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)
Antonio Biaggi
You know, instead of nominating a page for deletion why not help it out? Antonio Biaggi is a noteworthy porn star as he is very popular in the Gay community if you look at his Facebook page he has over 70,000 likes and has been in several porns. Also if you look at the external links section you will see that the page passes GNG as there is no original research needed all information comes from those sources if you look at them and the external links are the same as Matthew Rush (pornographic actor) so I do not understand how it has no reliable sources when the sources are in the external links. So can you please remove your propsal? Thanks! SummerFunandSun (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also the fact that it took this long for him to get a page when he owns his own website, Biaggi Videos, has done a lot of pornographic films like Matthew Rush, etc. is astonishing. SummerFunandSun (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Sophie Hunter
You can contest the speedy but please don't just remove the tag, these Fairyspit socks are a pain in my ass and continue to create articles just to base it around Benedict Cumberbatch. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Guías Amarillas
Hi, can you take the correct action to get this page deleted? I'm unfamiliar with the EN-wiki procedures. We received a complaint at OTRS, ticket number 2014100110006778. (I'm a member of the ES-wiki OTRS team). As far as I can see the claim in the message is accurate and the Guías Amarillas page indeed forms part of a scam. On other Wiki's where I am active, this would be a valid reason for speedy deletion. Jcb (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, please help me in this case rather that ignoring me, while happy reverting. This is not helpful and you are causing scam to remain online. Jcb (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC) (member of the OTRS team)
- I deleted the article, the evidence looks solid enough to me; if it is not, and someone can fully explain, it will be easy enough to restore.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of The Petroglyph Museum and List of Azerbaijani musicians
I was hoping I could get you to reverse your decision concerning the speedy deletion of these two articles. While it is true that none of the relevant accounts were blocked when these two articles were created, per this discussion NovaSkola was indefinitely topic banned from editing any thing relating to Azerbaijan and Armenia (except sports articles). Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a very valid point, but . . . I wouldn't be surprised if whoever checks the speedy noms next falls into the same trap I fell into, because the G5 templates don't provide any way to indicate a topic ban has been violated, or to cite the ban notice. SOP is pretty much to check the block log and notices, but in this case the log and the final notice didn't mention topic ban violations. Why don't you just AFD them; I expect there'll be a rapid snow close if not a speedy. Meanwhile, I'll draft a proposal to add a topic ban-specific template for G5. Sorry for the inconvenience. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion for you
I see that you are frequently at loggerheads with other editors and your page has been vandalized many times. I would suggest some introspection on how you handle this matter of deleting NFC. These are articles which people have worked on long and hard about topics that they are passionate about. When you take unilateral action (even though it was held up by more experienced editors) and treat contributors like children, posting warnings on their page and being generally, in my opinion, a bully when enforcing Misplaced Pages policy, you cannot be surprised that people are rubbed the wrong way.
In my case for example, if you had brought it up to the NFC discussion board first, allowed a detailed discussion to take place with consensus, that entire unpleasantness could have been avoided. A little bit of tact goes a long way, especially when dealing with other people's hard work.Myopia123 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Cheban article
Hi Hullaballoo,
You removed the personal section of the Jonathan Cheban article. I would like to discuss this. I do not think this is gossip for several reasons.
1) When does a personal relationship become important in a bio? Is marriage the dividing line? Or does serious long-term dating count?
2) Cheban's celebrity always brings up the question of his sexuality. Some say he is gay; others say he has a romantic interest in Kardashian. Noting his dating in his personal life is a response to these questions.
3) Cheban made an appearance on celebrity matchmaker, which was written about in reputable news sources. His romantic status then becomes relevant, and thus the reference to his dating life.
I hope we can discuss this further.
Thanks, Robert ToppDogg10458 (talk)
Addendum: I am going to edit the paragraph to stress the relevance of the Personal Life section. (10-5-14 9:55 PM EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToppDogg10458 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Sophie Hunter (theatre director)
Isn't there a speedy delete for a not needed redirect? Because since there is only one Sophie Hunter, no need to have a (theatre director) redirect page, right? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
- No. "Not needed" redirects go to WP:RfD, unless no target for the redirect exists. And redirects resulting from page moves, where incoming links exist, are generally not deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Early Long, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Hale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for opening the case
Thanks for opening the case about Molly Ringwald. I was unaware of the larger issue. Dismas| 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is to post 870!
Please, please, please archive. Some users browsers/internet connection makes this page almost impossible to load. 870 is by far the longest talk page TOC I've seen - NickGibson3900 09:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Warning
This is a warning but moreso a proposal of me archiving this damn page for you. Cause I totally will! I'll even do it by dates if you want, it'll ease my OCD :) Oh and you have 24 hours to respond or I will take that as you want me to :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- FYI I just saved your page on my desktop. It was 3mb. This means that if I run out of mobile data it will cost me 60p (i.e a buck) for the priviledge of reading the latest diatribe aimed at you. Popcorn to entertainment this is a poor deal. Please archive.. Spartaz 18:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Halloween cheer!
Happy Halloween!Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Misplaced Pages, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages of people you'd like to send this to with a friendly message.
- On an unrelated note you really should archive your talkpage, If there was a Guinness Book of Worlds Records for the longest and biggest talkpage you sure as hell would win it! :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ken Turner (singer)
I'm not convinced of passing A7 without the groups having notability, but I see you already renominated with G12. This piece should go. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The Blessed Book of Beasts
per
1. Book listing at amazon and a review from a christian website 2. Nada 3. Nada 4. nada 5. Nada
and please archive that talk page :/ Avono♂ (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Eleanor Hibbert
Did you read the article? She was an author who was very conscious about her privacy and hid behind several pseudonyms. She had (and still has) millions of fans all over the world who never knew that they are reading books in different genres from the same author. She wrote ~ 200 books over 60 years. That is why there are so many different publicity images of her - across the different genres and over the years. How did she manage this fantastic output? By taking her typewriter with her wherever she went. Including images of her publicity stills and her photograph with her typewrite significantly enhances the reader's understanding of her life. Do NOT delete these images again or your behavior will tip over into vandalism. R0x5r (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- All of that is more than adequately conveyed by text alone. And don't pretend that disagreeing with you in a content dispute is vandalism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Really, text alone is sufficient to show what a person really looks like? Why did we invent photography? Have you ever taken a photo in your life? I repeat - do NOT vandalize the page with your nonsensical edits!!! R0x5r (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
New Jersey seal copyrights
The 3 seals that you removed from my page are not non-free images, they are public domain, as per multiple court rulings in the United States, both by district, and federal judges. In fact, one of those 3 seals were directly involved in a court ruling.
According to section 2B of the Lanham Act: "No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it--
(b)Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof." http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html
When a case arose in Houston on the usage of a county seal, a federal court ruled (15 U.S.C. § 1052(b)) that county seals can not be registered for trademark, or copyright. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1356.Opinion.9-26-2013.1.PDF
This ruling states that county seals, and other government symbols are not protected by copyright, or trademark. Under Misplaced Pages's criteria for non-free content, it would appear that the 3 seals you removed from my profile are, infact, free. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legionary74 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
FYI mentioned your comments
FYI mentioned your comments at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bambolinaz, please feel free to participate there. — Cirt (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
ISP Supplies
Please demonstrate the claim of notability in this article. It's a simple unsourced statement that the company exists. As such it clearly meets the requirements of a db-a7. bite does not take precedence. Four different editors have now put the a7 speedy requerst on this article. This is not the first article to be created in the last few days that referenced the same company that was put up for speedy, and the article creator is already blocked. Furthermore, your summary description of the editor who put this article up for speedy likely qualifies as a personal attack. I suggest hat you revert yourself. Meters (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- No. None of that justifies speedying an article after its creator writes a single sentence. A7 is not mandatory, but following WP:BEFORE is prescribed by deletion policy. I believed that editors who make a point of racing to tag articles, especially by new editors, without having thne simple decency to let their creators complete them are pestilential, a negative to the project, and such behaviornis accurately characterized as abusive. Defending and enabling them is hardly better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have userfied the article. The editor is welcome to create a reliably sourced article that demonstrates notability once he returns. Meters (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Shall I consider than an attack on all 3 editors who restored the speedy as well? Meters (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- And your opinion does not excuse your attack on the original a7 requester. The request was nothing out of the ordinary. Meters (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did you really just argue that abusive editing behavior doesn't justify its description as abusive? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, I stated that I didn't think your opinion was correct that that the tagging of this article with a db-a7 justified you calling the editor abusive. and since you've now labelled me as borderline trolling for having a polite conversation, I'll be unwatching this thread. Please don't post on my talkpage. Meters (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Did you really just argue that abusive editing behavior doesn't justify its description as abusive? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- And your opinion does not excuse your attack on the original a7 requester. The request was nothing out of the ordinary. Meters (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Shall I consider than an attack on all 3 editors who restored the speedy as well? Meters (talk) 19:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Cam30
I am not sure I understand why the Cam30 article was not deleted. While as an administrator I know you have a lot of leeway on the decisions you make; I just wanted to show where I was coming from. I did a google search on Cam30, there are two hits for this artist and cam30world.com, which seems to be the artists own website. In addition this article was deleted back in November. At that time the editor was also issued instructions on the guide to creating new articles and the article wizard. I try to be very careful in the articles I nominate for speedy delete. I have made a few errors and I am learning. If I knew why you decided to keep this article it would help me in the future. Thanks, VVikingTalkEdits 17:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- First of all, I'm not an admin, although I certainly take enough abuse here to make people think I'm one. Any editor (except the actual article creator) can decline a speedy. Second, as I stated clearly in the edit summary, your tagging was far too hasty. The article was created only three minutes before you tagged it, and the creator was obviously still working on it one minute before you tagged it. There was no way to tell what the article creator's finished product would have been, and even in its current state it includes a minimal assertion of significance via the subject's involvement with an apparently notable creative work. Overly aggressive and hasty tagging like this damages Misplaced Pages by driving away new, potentially productive contributors and is not balanced by the minimal damage caused by allowing mostly harmless articles on possibly non-notable subjects to remain on the project briefly. There is even a consensus developed template, Template:Uw-hasty, to warn repeat offenders to stop such tagging. Third, the prior speedy deletion of an article is in no way precedential, and does not prevent anyone, even the creator of the deleted version, from attempting to write a new and more satisfactory article. Attempts to correct prior failures are encouraged here, not subjected to cursory deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. I was unaware of UW_Hasty. I will be more carefull in the future.
New articles on incidents called terrorism
"We ought to adopt a hard-and-fast rule that every incident treated as a terrorist killing by reliable media and receiving substantial initial coverage is deemed to satisfy requirements for an article." How would one go about making such a policy effective?ShulMaven (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Darshan Kumar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darshan Kumar is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Darshan Kumar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've restored the article, but I've also nominated it for deletion since it was a csd-tagged article. This is not meant as a punishment or criticism, merely an attempt to allow the community to decide the matter instead of leaving the issue of deletion in the hands of one administrator. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input at the afd. On too many occasions the contributors do not weigh in there, and as a result the article get re-deleted. I'll be honest and say that I had forgotten that there were notability guidelines specifically for people in the entertainment industry, so I will need to reread that material again to better remember it in the future for moments like this. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Your analysis is completely and utterly incorrect... :)
The section title is meant in jest because of one particular comment you made on the Laura Marano talk page, "Scalhotrod and I really don't like each other, and I'd be inclined to stay out of it if it weren't so wrongheaded and disruptive."
Quite simply, I do not dislike you. Though I can understand why you may feel this way and, for that matter, there have been several instances where I could have responded in a "tit for tat" manner to many of your edits and comments, but have not for this reason.
As much as your impression is that we are at odds with each other, my opinion of you is that your actions serve to make me a better Editor and a more knowledgeable and experienced member of this online community. And for that I am thankful of your attitude and efforts.
From my perspective, the only way you could have any detrimental affect on my Misplaced Pages activities would be to cease your interaction with me altogether. But I don't see that happening, I think in some way you enjoy our interaction as frustrating for you as it may come across.
Take care and Happy Holidays to you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Veronique Halloin
Hi, there. This article is an autobiography by someone who had evidently confused Misplaced Pages with LinkedIn or Who's Who. Speedying it seemed the most likely way to keep her from following up by posting her résumé. Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion is not to be used to prevent things you think might happen. Judging by the lengthy and well-referenced article on the French wikipedia, this person is clearly notable, and appears rather unlikely to need to advertise herself on en-wiki. Try to follow WP:AGF, and remember that it is almost never appropriate to A7 an article less than one minute after a new editor has begun to work on it! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again, HW. Not to belabour the point unduly, but I note that the French Misplaced Pages article is largely the work of one IP editor (one who persisted over other editors' objections that "Ce n'est pas un CV") and is likely an undetected autobiography/vanity page. Creating an autobiography on English Misplaced Pages is also strongly discouraged; and this one made no claim about the importance of the subject, so I believe it fell within A7. Moreover, the editor has thankfully decided not to expand her autobiographical article, and as such it's now a BLP lacking a single source. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, given that you tagged it only seconds after the creator began writing it, it's hardly surprising that the creator was discouraged from continuing immediately. This particular type of tagging is not consider good behavior, and there's even a standard template discouraging it. Template:Uw-hasty COI alone is not grounds for deletion, let alone speedy deletion, and the subject's academic credentials are more than enough to survive A7. If the article ends up including overly promotional text, all that would be required is cleanup via routine editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, maybe you're right about the hastiness. As for the noteworthiness of the subject, I tend to go with the guideline: "if your life and achievements are... notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later." Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged: I guess I strongly discouraged one. Ten lashes with a wet noodle. Anyway, happy editing! -- Rrburke (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again, HW. Not to belabour the point unduly, but I note that the French Misplaced Pages article is largely the work of one IP editor (one who persisted over other editors' objections that "Ce n'est pas un CV") and is likely an undetected autobiography/vanity page. Creating an autobiography on English Misplaced Pages is also strongly discouraged; and this one made no claim about the importance of the subject, so I believe it fell within A7. Moreover, the editor has thankfully decided not to expand her autobiographical article, and as such it's now a BLP lacking a single source. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
AfD's
Hey Hullaballoo!
Just wanted to say I don't have an issue with you reverting my AfD closures. I do prefer being contacted prior and being allowed the chance to do so myself (of which I'd do without hesitation). Thanks though! Dusti 19:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I commented at your talk page while you were posting here. I was particularly concerned by your lending credibility to the accusations of bad faith by Rebecca1990, who has a track record of casting aspersions (and worse) to gain advantages in AFD discussions (not to suggest you in any way share in such behavior). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I try to stay impartial and give equal weight to all (within reason) - I don't know of her track record and I generally don't do an in depth check when deciding the validity of !votes :) Thanks for the heads up on her though - I'll go do a little bit of digging now. Dusti 19:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Notice from Technical 13
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz archival. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with your sentiment against automatic archiving, but do you mind if I just toss everything older than a year on an archive subpage? I've done it before for other people, it's generally harmless, it helps if you don't want the hassle of doing it yourself, and it'll keep the pesky people off your back for some time. ;) Let me know! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)