User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 16

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!

Warmest wishes for the new year from Eman235/talk 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Wolf!

(Charles R. Knight, 1922)

Wolf, I wish you and those dear to you golden days of love and joy in a Happy New Year 2016! Best regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC) Pass on! Send this greeting by adding {{subst:User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}} to user talk pages. Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.

(Unknown artist, Norway, 1916)

Speedy Tags

I've just seen you've removed the speedy tag from a page (Latin's Next Top Model (cycle 1)). However, please note that both Latin America's Next Top Model and Latin's Next Top Model (cycle 2) have both been speedied. Could you possibly tell me how the linked article is not suitable for CSD A3? Also with another article you've removed the speedy tag for is Praveen Dixit which, granted, may not be A11 Material but could still be CSD A7. Would the latter article be A7? 81.152.228.83 (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Wolfowitz. Wikipedia logged me out half way through making that comment. It's me by the way. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Both articles weren't A3, they were G3. Remarking Cycle 1 as G3 now. TF ^{{ Contribs } { Edit Quest! }} 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• You need to take much more care in placing speedy deletion nominations, and should stop tagging articles moments after their creation, while new editors are still trying to write them. You tagged Praveen Dixit one minute after the article creator had written their first sentence. You tagged an article with rathr lengthy substantive content as A3. You tagged articles on actual, living people as db-madeup. The speedy deletion process is not a license to randomly tag substandard articles for deletion without reasonably and accurately evaluating their content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ballantine441.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ballantine441.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Green Party of Mississippi, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Me-123567-Me. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Green Party of Hawaii has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• You lie. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Hawaii. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Delaware. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kansas Green Party. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Mississippi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Minnesota. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Arizona Green Party, you may be blocked from editing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Sullivan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lost world. 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) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy tags

I noticed you've had some bother with people moaning about your tag removals. I too had a similar incident not long ago, and also received threats over it. So much for being bold eh? Adam9007 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Samantha Ryan

How is it "multiple BLP" violations when the information is well sourced from reliable and valid sources?

Holanthony (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Have you ever read WP:BLP. Unverified accusations from a Twitter post are not "well sourced from reliable and valid sources". Neither are statements from a self-published book. Under you understand such basic points, you have no business editing BLPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But how is "Off the Set: Porn Stars and Their Partners" by Paulie & Pauline a "self-published book"? You do understand it was released by Aural Pink Press, LLC., right? Not in any way is it associated to either Lockwood or Ryan. Also, how is Ryan's statement that she has retired from the industry an "unverified accusation"? Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater when reverting edits.Holanthony (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop playing games; this is borderline trolling. "Aural Pink Press" is owned/operated by Paulie and Pauline Photography. It publishes only books (probably just one) they author. That's a paradigm of the self-published source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please try and act civil and stop throwing out wanton accusations for effect. It is not uncommon for photographers to release their work through their own studios, you know this. The reasons being that the market for photography books is limited. Also, the very premise of the book are couples in a relationship, thus it is not making any "claims" about third parties. All claims are thus related to the source so to speak.

And you still haven't answered my question how you motivate removing Ryan's statement about her retirement.Holanthony (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. Go read the relevant policy/guideline pages, particularly WP:BLP and WP:SPS, carefully. Your failure to evidence awareness of these basic policies is hardly suggestive of good faith. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you say that? Here's what WP:SPS says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Ryan's claim on twitter that she has retired is clearly acceptable under these rules. And please stop making implicit threats. I am reaching out to you on your page to discuss this matter in a due and proper manner.Holanthony (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but irrelevant. If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there. You've been editing since 2010, and somehow haven't figured out BLP basics yet? That's hardly convincing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Who said anything about Paulie and Pauline? The section I'm referring to is the statement Ryan made on her own Twitter page about herself. By BLP rules, such references are acceptable.Holanthony (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also about other people, and therefore can't be used like you want to. In general, you can't just parrot unverified accusations from self-published sources. Your talk page shoes a long-term pattern of willful blindness to BLP basics, and I'm not inclined to waste any more term on a tendentious editor who's plainly unwilling to learn. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about one twitter post in particular. All she says in that one particular post is that she has retired. It does not mention anyone else and the statement is solely about her. How is that a "violation" of BLP? The very point I am discussing this with you also invalidates your argument of me "not wanting to learn". I see one thing in the guideline, and you make a different interpretation. Hardly extraordinary that I ask you to clarify on the matter, is it?Holanthony (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, you said earlier "If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there". Well, someone has, here: http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Porn-Stars-In-Love-Violet-Blue-Off-The-Set-2541129.php#photo-2072919. Would you be prepared to accept that as a source? Can you please try to answer without resorting to rudeness?Holanthony (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. It doesn't mention Samantha Ryan. Go away. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali Heydarpour

Your edit summary is mistaken. Although two refs were apparently added, one was to Wikipedia itself and neither of the two mention the subject of the article, as noted here. The BLPProd tag should therefore remain in place. BC108 (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

No, the summary was correct. You placed the bBLPPROD roughly one minute after a new user began writing. That's just plainly inappropriate. and very bad practice. When they'd finished writing their text, five minutes later, the article may have been badly referenced, but wasn't eligible for an initial BLPPROD. The surviving ref did mention the subject of the article, but the inexperienced editor didn't get the form right. Don't show so much enthusiasm for kicking inexperienced editors around. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Riley Reid

3RR. Take it to talk with Rebecca. Discuss it per MOS:IMAGES Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Drunkards walk ret.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: ). Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dowd & Shriver

I see you reverted my edits to the page of Matthew Dowd. If you feel the info doesn't belong please discuss on the talk page without the need to delete and revert sourced material Mk17b (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

No. WP:BLP states clearly that dubious material like this should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. The burden is on you, under BLP, to obtain consensus for its restoration, and you may not restore it without achieving consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problematic signature. Thank you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 11:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of DPI Specialty Foods for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DPI Specialty Foods is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPI Specialty Foods 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. Bazj (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

C1N1K1LL discography

Are you sure it's not A7 or A9 eligible? It was originally tagged A9, but as it's not about a particular album and was more about the band itself, I changed it to A7. Otherwise I would have just removed the A9 tag. Adam9007 (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A7 says "not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works"; I think that would exclude discographies from A7. A9 would be a more natural fit, but it is limited to individual works, as you noted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Discogrpahy is indirectly about the band itself, so I thought A7 was a better fit. It's right along the border between A7, A9, and outside CSD's scope isn't it? It almost certainly fails WP:GNG, so I might PROD it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the best way to go. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:SNOW, basically — the band had already been deleted A7, and the album deleted A9 accordingly, so there was simply no real basis left for the discography article to be kept anymore. And bands don't all automatically get their discographies spun off as separate articles from the main one anyway — that only becomes appropriate if and when the band's article is long enough to warrant chunking out into multiple parts. So a separate discography article was never actually warranted, and should have been redirected back to the band article anyway — but with the band article a redlink, it then would have qualified for speedy under G8 too. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Neelix Redirectsy

Your recent removal of CSD tags is not helping the cleanup. Maybe you are not aware of this Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Proposal:_temporary_WP:IAR_speedy_delete_criterion

Stop your trolling. You know perfectly that absolutely nothing in the discussion you cite prevents, or even discourages, editors from objecting to such tags. If you had bothered to check the basis for my objection, you'd have seen it was accurate, but, as usual, you lash out at editors who disagree with you rather than even attempting to edit collaboratively. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

C1N1K1LL

The band's article was already deleted A7, and the only album with an article was already deleted A9 accordingly. And bands' discographies aren't all automatically entitled to get spun off as separate standalone articles from the band's main one anyway, but rather get that treatment only if and when the band's article is long and detailed enough to warrant having parts of it split off to other articles. So it really should have been converted back into a redirect to the band anyway, and not left to stand a separate article of its own — and if it had been handled the way it should have been, it would have become a G8 the moment the main article got deleted. So what would even be the point of still keeping the discography for six more days? The snowball principle is a valid one too. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

"The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions". The PROD process doesn't fall within that description. Speedy deletion criteria should be narrowly read, and this doesn't fall witin either A7 or A9. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Williamson

Seeing how you screwed up my careful edits on creating a seperate bibliography page for these authors: Dave Wolverton, R.A. Salvatore, Robert Jordan, L.E. Modesitt, Jr. etc, etc, all my work here was just pastiched and deleted and without even consulting me for that matter, means to me that in my opinion as not so less distinguished editor like you is that you have been violating most professional and editor collegial sense, that brings me into contempt into trying to discuss further and bring up the matter further or even revert the pile of crap you brought back. These authors need bibliography pages. I am trying to conceive them. What you did is without any kind of reasonable justice and collegial relationship here. If you want revert them all, but there is no way, you and I will ever work, ever again in any kind of way here.

The Mad Hatter (talk)

NFCC Violation

Hi there. You removed a photo with this edit, citing an NFCC violaton. Could you explain? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a nonfree image with no article-specific use rationale, and we have multiple free images of the article subject at commons. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't able to locate one of the free images on the commons. Could you please add a link here to one of them? Or better yet, just replace the same image you removed in the article with one of the free ones you speak of. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

[1]. WP:NFCC is absolutely clear here; the nonfree movie poster can't be used as a general illustration in the bio article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find that exact wording in Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Could you please point it out? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale". Also check out WP:NFC#UULP#9, which discusses analogous examples. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"Unfree Media File" on my User Page.

@User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Hi, why did you feel the need to remove the file from my page, without saying anything about it on my talk page? I don't really mind that you removed, but thanks for consulting me on the subject... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomMeep (talk • contribs) 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that I Twinkled an article instead of a redirect. The commentary is not helpful though. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Megan Rain

Hi, yes I could use some help. Please give me any suggestions to make the article better. Anyway, she is still new and although no wins yet, she's been nominated for a lot and she also is moderately popular. When I get more information I'll make it a better article. Thank you!-Akhila3151996 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Bluntly: give up on this one. Read discussions related to WP:PORNBIO. Read WP:BLP and WP:RS with care. The subject apparently falls so far below our notability standards that this would be a lost cause. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

12 Finger Dan

I see you like to challenge PROD/CSD, which is of course fine, but why do you not send them to AfD after then? For example 12 Finger Dan, which you challenged, is at AfD now. Do we need to get consensus at AfD for every non-notable piece of puffery, just seems like a waste of time. JMHamo (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Just slapping a just-not-notable tag on articles you find substandard is an abuse of the deletion process. WP:BEFORE is incorporated into basic deletion policy, and the speed and superficiality with which you're tagging articles makes it clear thaqt you're not complying. Also, your history of following my editing is strongly indicating improper wikihounding at least coming close to WP:HARASSMENT. So stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion, you will notice that the articles I take to AfD are deleted on 99% of occasions, so if I feel that an article should be deleted, I do not apologise for sending it to AfD for wider community consensus, rather than leave a non-notable article to rot. I guess we are never going to agree, so I will leave it at this... JMHamo (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

...and if you want me to back up my claim, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ ILJANO, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Finger Dan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Games (video game developer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazunari Kakei and there are more; are articles which you challenged that will most probably be deleted once the AfD runs its course. JMHamo (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, can you help me on wikipedia, because I am newbie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wade Jones (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, because you broke my last change?Damon Felton (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Damon has been indeffed as a sock. Hopefully, this means that Elisha Cuthbert will quiet down for a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Non free content use on user pages ?

Hi @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Re removal of University of Queensland logo from my user page: Sure understand non free content but I thought it would be fair use of such. It succinctly identifies the institution and does not imply that I am representing that institution other than I am an ex-student of it. Happy to stand corrected but how is it not fair use ? Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It may be fair use under the legal definition, but WP:NFCC#9, which is policy, says that fair use images can only be used in articles, and specifically only in the article namespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Such is life I suppose - no biggy for me. Aoziwe (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CHRNPLIS19XX.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CHRNPLIS19XX.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for the excellent additions of the FFM covers onto the List of works by Sax Rohmer page: it makes the whole thing look a lot less bland than it did before! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Richard Jason Paris

Looks like most of your cleanup was undone...Naraht (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicky Scarfo & Phil Leonetti articles

Hey, I edited the Phil Leonetti biography and sourced it very well. The Nicky Scarfo article has no references whatsoever and was such a prominent figure in the American Mob, if you would like to delete some of it as you did with the other page then go for it and I'll try and found some valuable sources to back up the information. You'll find the whole Nicky Scarfo page is detailed from either a documentary about him or the Phil Leonetti YouTube videos

ActorBoss (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

2nd AFD for Cordelia Mendoza article

Since you participated in the first discussion in 2011 for afd of this article, the result of which was "keep," I am notifying you that another discussion is ensuing about the same article in case you would like to participate again. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

oops

I accidentally reverted you, but I put it back. It was a mis-click. HighInBC 16:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Sins deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Johnny Sins, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I declined the prod on the basis that the reporting on the supposed space sex may be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! clpo13_(talk) 23:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus?

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You reinserted your bold edit to this template. I don't believe it has consensus, so I am requesting that you provide me a link to the discussion in which consensus was achieved to including A7 in the template:Uw-hasty, and specifically how that is supported by WP:A7. Thank you.- MrX 11:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Gina G singles discography

Well, that only took ten months. This stuff isn't patrolled anymore. Pretty much unenforced. You might want to tag the covers as orphaned now. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

PROMO

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You apparently interpret db-promo as requiring blatantly non-neutral language. In my view the existence of an article about some obscure product or idea or institution is the product of promotionalism - somebody wants to boost the visibility of X so they create a WP article about it. Please consider that putting Good Shepherd Schools through AfD is a waste of the community's time and will be a SNOW close. I am unhappy that you prevented an admin from reviewing Gary Jones (nurse)‎ but that one, I will acknowledge, is more marginal. But Good Shepherd Schools is a waste of an AFD. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Your interpretation of db-promo is unsupported by consensus, and amount to an end run around A7 requirements. WP:G11 says clearly, unmistakeably, and unambiguously that Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. Please to conform to this principle when tagging articles in the future. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, but it had also been previously tagged g11, but it was declined and fixed, so it wasn't CSD eligible anyway. HW is right here. Adam9007 (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Karelasyon episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Max Collins. 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) 10:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Accusation of falsified credentials

Hi HW,

I trust you're fine. I want to let you know that I forwarded my credentials and employment document to the OTRS team. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Picture Objection-Bobbie Billard

These are direct from the source Bobbi Billard. My Client and Friend. These picture's are not of my choosing.She has pointed out photo's on Wikipedia that are much worse and do reference how I may want to squeeze her hawking hooters is down right disrespectful. I am trying to do a job I was hired (Recommendation) No Monetary compensation to do. The info and Photo's are from a reliable Source. Herself. Please feel free to contact me or her.. (Me:sprtcs40@yahoo.com or Jibbet1@gmail.com) Or Bobbie Billard:bobbi@bobbibillard.com

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance.

Jim Engel aka:Spart Special Project Art

Note

HW, I politely ask that you be a bit less inappropriate in your edit summaries. Also, bear in mind that not everyone who claims to represent a celebrity, does represent that celebrity. DS (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Stoya

Passes WP:PORNBIO? Support AfD or against? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of a PORNBIO claim, appears to pass the GNG due to coverage of her sexual abuse allegations against James Deen. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wait, is there a reason for applying WP:UNDUE to her allegations of rape? Nothing has been proven and while I believe other allegations have some merit, hers seems to be questionable to included without background. She may pass WP:PORNBIO for her Best New Starlet award, but I think Rachel Roxxx was deleted, has also won awards and received mainstream coverage. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

As the primary complainant I can't see that undue will have much impact. Its unlikely that an AFD would reach a consensus to delete due to the award. WRT Rachel Roxxx - it appears the consensus this time last year was that she didn't pass the GNG - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rachel_Roxxx_(3rd_nomination). Awards that are scene related no longer count and according to the AFD, there were no wins at the time of deletion. Are we discussing the same performer? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Dellusion Records‎

Hi, if you checked the note in my edit summary when I reverted Dellusion Records‎, there's nothing for the author to add. There is no company. It's a YouTube page that was created in November 2015, there's no website, no roster of artists, etc. (I checked before I Speedied it.) It's someone posting EDM videos and claiming to be a label, the same is true of "Illusion Studios" and "DeKay Studios," just a few traks on sites like SoundCloud with no signed artists, actual business, etc. IMO it warrants a Speedy, but if an admin declines it I'll take it to AfD. Either way it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and there's nothing for them to add to change it. I'd appreciate it if you'd let an admin review the speedy. JamesG5 (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just PROD it if you must. There's no good reason not to allow the article creator a decent chance to write up a new article without being tag-bombed and driven away. The first speedy was added to the article before the creator had a real opportunity to finish their work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit: Correction to above, I see they've linked their website (which doesn't show up on search & is not linked from their YouTube). It has a bare "about us" and nothing which changes the lack of significance. The speedy contestantation is from the owner of the label, which makes it clear there're WP:COI and WP:PROMO issues with the page, so speedy regardless. The creator was editing the page for some time after I placed the Speedy and added nothing that would show otherwise. JamesG5 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Per your request, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dellusion_Records JamesG5 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Biomass preprocessing

FYI, I've prodded this new essay after you removed the speedy tag. I agree with you that the speedying was patent nonsense, but I think the article itself should better be rewritten from scratch. De728631 (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Caine

I concur with your edit in the Caine Mutiny article. Since you seem acquainted with such things, perhaps you could evaluate the copyright status of the two Queeg files being discussed here. These are purported trailer images but that is not what my conclusion from examination thereof. Coretheapple (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Images Queeg A and Queeg B are PD under the provisions of US Copyright law (Title 17 USC) which establishes that any images first published in pre-1978 uncopyrighted movie trailers are in the Public Domain irrespective of where they may subsequently be published or appear. This has been the accepted policy and basis for their use in WP movie articles by the by WikiProject-Film in 2007. (See WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): "Free Images for Films" (April, 2007) and further explantion HERE.) The specific PD frames from which these two images are derived are from an uncopyrighted 1954 Caine Mutiny trailer as can clearly be seen HERE for "Queeg A" and HERE for "Queeg B". Centpacrr (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sara Ali Khan

Just a courtesy notice that I created a deletion discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Ali Khan since you felt the Speedy was unwarranted. Thought you might care to weigh in. JamesG5 (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mher Khachatryan

I misread the original AFD for Mher Khachatryan and thought it said he was a actor also so that was why I put it up, sorry about that! Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SKCRIT

I'm wondering why you excluded the following clause from the policy "no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion." There were clearly delete votes and two redirect votes. Maybe this is best left to an administrator and not suitable for NAC? Jolly Ω Janner 23:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The delete !vote wasn't there when I started the close; this may be an edit conflict problem. "Redirect" !votes aren't delete !votes. Let's see if there are substantive objections, because, frankly, the trend was overwhelming, particularly since the nom came out and said they were nominating it because they weren't getting their way in a content discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If the deletion vote wasn't there, then that is fair enough. I admit, I can't see it going anywhere at this time. Jolly Ω Janner 02:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Fanindra Deb Institution. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Please let an admin review it. Musa Talk  14:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Musa Raza: If he didn't create the page, he's perfectly entitled to remove speedy tags. Adam9007 (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Only if the removal of said tag is legitimate, i.e. the page was wrongly tagged, or has been improved such that it no longer meets the CSD. — Smjg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

You removed a speedy deletion tag on Roots: A Novel by Rahul Bhatt with this comment: "inaccurate, incompetent, abusively hasty speedy tagging". Would you care to explain how the tag was "inaccurate" or "incompetent"? — Smjg (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the content provided sufficient context, making the db-context tag plainly inapplicable. Given that the editor who placed the tag has been working in speedy deletion only for a few hours, and is making ghastly inaccurate tags like the one here, Talk:Moinul_Islam_Neloi, it's obviously reasonable to note their lack of competence. You would do well to devote your attention to trying to deter WP:BITE violations which drive away new users attempting to edit reasonably if imperfectly rather than hassling those of us who try to support new users. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Our Lady of Victories Church, Somwarpet

See Our Lady of Victories Church, Somwarpet after C/E.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Charisma Carpenter

What do you mean in-universe? She spends 11 episodes of the fourth season of Angel playing Jasmine, not Cordelia. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 17:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Just what I said. A plot point is not an actual role. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

But she is playing a different character - it's established that through those 11 episodes, it is Jasmine, not Cordelia. If that's the case, then Amy Acker should only be described as portraying Fred and not Illyia. --Imagine Wizard (talk · contribs · count) Iay amay Magineiay Izardway. 12:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Your recent editing history at Amber Rayne shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all you do on Wikipedia Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Danielle Marcot (Shining Time Station)

I was about to do a BLP prod for Danielle Marcot (Shining Time Station), not sure why I did DB-person, anyway upon looking around on Wikipedia for the name Danielle Marcot, it seems that goes as a redirect to that show, so would this become a redirect also? (that is if this survives the BLP prod) Wgolf (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that's a good call, unless the added sourcing would justify a standalone. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy abuse

RE: Corpus Christi Fire Department -- Sorry, I admit, sometimes I am abusive and put speedy deletion tags on new articles with no references. In the future, I will use the proposed deletion tag. Thank you for correcting me. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Startling Stories gallery

Hi -- this edit of yours, eliminating the gallery of non-free images, is reasonable, but I think a defense of the images can be made. You removed them a year ago and I replaced them after starting a discussion on the talk page. Can you comment there? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

disruptive editing

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Aaliyah, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.Mulaj (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Mulaj

I am completely unimpressed when someone with a handful of edits contests an edit of mine by reverting without a meaningful edit summary and placing a completely unfounded, similarly unexplained warning template on my talk page. Telling me to "familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines", even though I have been editing here since 2006 and have roughly 200 times as many edits as you do, makes it impossible for me (or any reasonable user, I suspect) to take you seriously, and edit summaries where you without provocation call another editor "dumbass" [2] or "you ignorant fool" [3] hardly suggest an interest in rational discussion. I see no reason to give your opinions any weight right now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hotel notability to be discussed centrally, at one AFD i hope

Hi, I haven't looked into this to check anything, but it is asserted by another editor at Talk:Renaissance Barcelona Fira Hotel that you have nominated a bunch of hotels for speedy deletion. I arrive at the topic area from coming across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hotel Barcelona Princess. That seems like a good forum to discuss notability standards.

Towards participating in the AFD, I began browsing about other Barcelona hotels and came across the speedy. If there are other speedy deletions out there could you possibly please cancel them, and contribute at the AFD instead? Also I suggest you don't open other AFDs, but rather mention the other marginal examples at the existing AFD. Just hoping for a centralized discussion that would really settle the area. If there is a centralized discussion somewhere, let me know, and let the AFD participants at the Hotel Barcelona Princess AFD know, too.

Thanks, --doncram 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No. Notability standards for businesses are clear, and hotels are businesses. The fact that hotels do business in buildings hardly distinguishes them from most other businesses. If you want to argue that hotels require some sort of special treatment that other businesses don't enjoy, the onus is on you to articulate a coherent, rational argument to that effect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your not wanting to go along with a polite request to discuss a bunch of separate items in one centralized discussion. Where coherent, rational arguments can be considered. But okay. I will oppose the speedy deletion requests that I can find in your edit history. --doncram 21:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Because you haven't produced a relevant argument. If you want to be disruptive, feel free, but if you don't produced a policy- or guideline-based argument as to how the businesses involved are significant I don't see any reason to treat such actions as WP:POINTY disruption. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Is it impossible to give a better explanation than "rv"? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You ignored the first explanation, which isn't my problem. Given the personal insults you throw in my direction in edit summaries, you don't even deserve than much of an explanation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I only asked why you need to edit in every article I have edited in the last houre. Did you go through all my edits in order to ensure that I don't destroy too much, or how do I have to understand that. Btw, it must be terrible when showing other users that articles are missing is forbidden in the english wikipedia because of cosmetic (red) reasons. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Go away. Don't come back until you've reviewed the various extensive discussions on inserting non-notable/insignificant promotional/vendor awards into porn articles, from last year. When you edit against consensus and insult editors who edit in accordance with consensus, you're going to get reverted. It's that simple. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Spamery" is of course a very good, careful and insultless explanation to point on past discussions. I thought that users should be nice and sympathatic to newbies (and in this case I am one). I won't find any discussions in dusty corners on my own, but there is the possibility to give links in this project. I only started to get angry when you stated your perfectly understandable explanations. Could you now please explain to me what is your problem with "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject."?--84.163.8.233 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod

Just wanted to direct you to User:Scalhotrod/UserSandbox which contains the full list of drafts and the like. Some with work are usable but the most are probably best blanked or reviewed for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

RE:Extremely inappropriate speedy tagging.

Hello, I apologize for this situation and inform me hither policies that are different from Wikipedia in Spanish (my house wiki). I promise not happen again. Regards and Thanks. --File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 16:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Complex magazine is spam?

Please explain how the well recognized fashion magazine Complex is "spam citing itself", as you asserted in this edit. I see you have been doing that for other references to the same magazine in other articles, and such disruptive activity is surprising from an otherwise constructive editor. Please help me understand your reasoning — and I advise you to cease this activity until you do. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have yet to see an example of a genuinely reliable source treating Complex's barrage of clickbait lists as in any way noteworthy. I don't believe I've ever seen a Complex list cited on Wikipedia to a secondary source, only to the Complex site itself. I've spotted SPAs adding cites to such lists in bulk, and seen them added by obvious publicists. My conclusion has been that the overwhelming majority of the cites are added for promotional purposes, usually to drive traffic to the Complex site. It cleaned up its act a bit recently to facilitate its recent sale to a major publisher, but I have yet to see anyone take its editorial content, especially those wretched lists, terribly seriously, and there are way too many examples of redundant cites, alongside far more reliable sources, that seem clearly intended as promotional. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Bread's Crumbs Speedy

This is the second time this has come up in as many weeks. The article is about a YouTube video. Youtube is not film. Youtube videos are eligible for A7 as web content. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that something is available on the web doesn't automatically make it "web content". The article asserts it's a film. You don't provide any sources for the claim that it's only available on youtube. A perfect PROD candidate, since the speedy claim requires more analysis and discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

How...do you provide sources substantiating that something is only available on youtube? There are no sources beside youtube. That's the point. TimothyJosephWood 21:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And that's why the speedy was inappropriate . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

... I don't mean to wiki lawyer, but it does seem to qualify under the "letter of the law". I'm not really arguing the point so much as I am befuddled by this seeming contradiction. Seems like a waste of a predetermined AfD. TimothyJosephWood 23:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Consider the analogy to the "obvious hoax" standard: there are articles where it's easy to establish that it's a hoax, but if it's not obvious on the face of the article, PROD or AFD is required. PRODding this would have been easy enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Tyler Knight

I de-prodded Tyler Knight because he won an award in 2009 that might be notable significant and well-known. Since the standards on which awards are good enough for WP:PORNBIO are so nebulous, I have no idea if that win proves notability and I have no objection if you want to take this article to AFD. clpo13_(talk) 19:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The PORNBIO standard isn't "notable", it's "well-known" and "significant". Merely notable was removed as a criterion years ago. The FPA isn't generally viewed as significant and has never been the basis for an AFD keep; even editors who generally oppose porn pereformer deletions have said things like " I've also yet to see any evidence offered that the Feminist Porn Awards qualify as 'a well-known and significant industry award'".(Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruby Day, where a winner of the award was deleted). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WT:BIO about coming up with some sort of list of what consensus deems acceptable for criterion #1 of PORNBIO. clpo13_(talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)