User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 02

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. Keegan (talk) 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." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Keegan (talk) 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. --MgCupcake (talk)


 * 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 Wikipedia policies/guidelines, like WP:LINKVIO and WP:CITE. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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". -t'shael chat 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalCorp (talk • contribs)
 * I've left a comment on this editor's page. Threatening or trying to intimidate another editor is not allowed here . Dayewalker (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Julie Benz
Hi, I declined your request for PP of Julie Benz, but you should certainly renominate it if the vandalism starts up again. I believe it is only one disruptive editor, which should be able to be handled through warnings/blocks. It would be great if you could issue warnings as well. I won't always be logged in, so again issue warnings and feel free to renominate it if the vandalism continues. Thanks for your help! Plastikspork (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerri Manthey
Thanks, it looks much better now. Plastikspork (talk) 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? Kuzosake (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC).
 * 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 Wikipedia standards for verifiability. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 Wikipedia standards then oh well.  Thanks for clarifying...Kuzosake   Kuzosake (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

Opinion requested
If you don't mind, I'd appreciate your input on this topic: Template talk:Infobox adult female

Thanks, Dismas |(talk) 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 Meryl Streep article. I don't know if it's true in Streep's case, but I've asked the editor via User:Talk page to stop removing the Yale U. cat. Even if Streep or any megastar attended the Drama school, readers may still look for them in the Yale U. cat as well. &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   15:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Mayer Brown
Just a friendly note on Mayer Brown. I wasn't comfortable deleting this as a speedy, since there were non-infringing versions and, as you rightly pointed out, it was a complicated case. Instead, I took a chainsaw to it and rewrote everything outside the info box. Mind taking a look and letting me know if it works for you? Thanks! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine to me, good job! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

David L Cook
Thank you for catching the issue with that award. Cook has won an Emmy with NBC and I thought that was the one. I really do appreciate you catching it and fixing it for me. Canyouhearmenow 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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? Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * NNDB not reliable, see Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing_BLP_concerns 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 Wikipedia"


 * 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 WP:RS


 * whosdatedwho.com and famouswhy.com are similar gossip sites which simply package and pass on content from sources that generally fail WP:RS. 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. WP:BLP requires very sound sourcing for biographical claims, and these don't really relate strongly to Delany's notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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. Tomwsulcer (talk) 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:Tomwsulcer (talk) 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 -- Tomwsulcer (talk) 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 wikipedia editors such as yourself.Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Your recent warning on User talk:Liverpoolshoes
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I'd like to remind you to add your signature after any talk page posts or warnings so we know who you are ;-). Thanks. - Jeffrey Mall | Talk2Me  | BNosey  - 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cassidy Cruise
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Cassidy Cruise. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Cassidy Cruise. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"See also" section at Fight Club
Hi there. I noted your comments in the edit summary for your removal of the entries from that section; to clarify, the discussion was not primarily about using Allmovie in the way that Erik implemented at Fight Club, but one over its suitability as an external link. The discussion petered out with no real conclusion—with no support, but also no consensus objection to such a use. I invite you to participate at Talk:Fight Club (film), where your thoughts on Erik's intended use of the section would be appreciated. All the best, Steve  T • C 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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! Asc85 (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.stlouis-strippers.com/ doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS, and in particular doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BLP. It's a self-published source and isn't very different, for Wikipedia sourcing purposes, from a blog.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Camp Encounter (2nd nomination)
Excellent detective work there. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And again - fantastic. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Redped
I am very sorry, for deleting things from Sophie Abelson, David Sturzaker & Michelle Lukes.

Redped

xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redped (talk • contribs) 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Roxy Panther
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Roxy Panther has been removed. It was removed by Chuthya with the following edit summary ' (Undid revision 304803778 by KevinOKeeffe (talk) asserts notability) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Chuthya before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

re: SDPatrolBot
Hmmm, that was added (making it notify the first user to tag) per suggestions at the BRfA. It's to avoid warning a vandalism reverter (say, a user tags the article, another user blanks (removing the PROD) ClueBot reverts (restoring the PROD), another user removes the PROD, ClueBot gets notified. Not that that's important, just my little defence ;). Anyway, I'll look into a way to get around this (possible using the date the PROD was added, or something similar). Thanks for letting me know :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 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 - Kingpin13 (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeking your advice about the Gerald Celente article
Hi excellent Hullaballoo. Wondering if you'd advise me about an article. Many users feel the Gerald Celente article is a lopsided, one-way advertising piece for Celente, a gloom-and-doom forecaster and business consultant, talking head. Most "references" in the existing article were bogus -- didn't go anywhere. Sometimes the reference was for a newspaper, but clicking on it only led to the paper's website -- that kind of thing; but there were perhaps two fairly solid references also (NY Times; one more; The El Paso Times reference was bogus). So I was intrigued. What was going on? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I spent a day researching the guy -- about 8 hours -- getting solid information and referencing each line with a good source (major newspaper or magazines etc). What I found is that Celente is an author, does have a consulting business in Rhinebeck NY, makes rather wild (extremely negative) predictions about the whole economy that border on the scary & bizarre (food riots, depression, tax revolts etc) but these rarely seem to happen; but he also makes business predictions too about consumer behavior, DIY market, and his business predictions are often rather bland, more reasonable. He's a guest on radio & TV talk shows fairly regularly (2 references said he was on Oprah, and he probably was, but I'm not certain), and his predictions make newspapers periodically. See, it's not that hard to do this -- newspapers are rushed and underfunded and need quick entertaining quotes as fodder for articles. My guess is Celente uses the wild statements to get media attention and help him build for himself a consulting business in Rhinebeck and uses the publicity to help him win clients. I don't know how many clients he has or how extensive his business is (this is typically confidential and I won't find it in any source) -- I expect his consulting business is mediocre, but above average -- he's not McKinsey (since he spends much time courting the media) but he has an office with several employees so it's a functioning business (as best I can determine). Several rather prominent bloggers feel he's a fraud -- with no traceable history or proper schooling or background; one blogger named Ed Champion did a rather thorough study of him and concluded this (and I think these opinions should be in the wikipedia article for balance). I think Celente's more complex than this -- reading through his business predictions in 2006, I thought some were reasonable. One thing really flaky -- Celente would comment to a reporter "I successfully predicted the stock market crash of 1987", but there is no pre-1987 record in the media of him going on the record with such a statement; I really hunted but found nothing. My sense is he's always making gloom-and-doom predictions (so he probably DID make such a guess but its meaningless because he's always been gloomy); the flaky thing is that he then uses these newspaper stories of I-predicted-the-1987-crash as PROOF that he did in fact make these predictions. Anyway, I think this is how he climbed out of the pit of obscurity with this flaky stuff, and now he's a "future prognosticator"; in any event, he's an interesting guy, don't you think? (continued) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

So I rewrote much of the Celente article, based ONLY on solid stuff from good sources, referencing each line -- I took about 8 hours doing this. And I posted my re-edit. But some other editor reverted it back with the lackluster explanation that the blogger quotes rendered my effort worthless and said "go to the talk page first". (I did have comments on the talk page from earlier, but they were ignored). I'm wondering what to do here. Do you have any advice? I've posted comments on the reverting editor's talk page to try to resolve the dispute. I think my revised article is NPOV, And check out my revised version to see if you like it? Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * 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 original research. 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. Wikipedia 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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. Tomwsulcer (talk) 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? Tomwsulcer (talk) 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 Gerald Celente 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 Wikipedia'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). Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

RE: comments at Worlds of Ultima AFD
you may be interested in this current conversation Ikip (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've noticed that you have taken a step in the Dispute Resolution Process by posting in. 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 Where to ask a question or ask me on. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 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? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 WP:WQA.  I hope you'll provide input, thanks" ... or you can use   the template   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. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 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 WP:COOL, because as BWilkins has pointed out, you're not working amicably to resolve the dispute you started, you're engaged in a series of moves that (in my view) are more escalatory than they are conciliatory. Please try to edit more collegially and in the spirit of working together and seeking consensus instead of editing so confrontationally. Even if you think that in your view the other party or parties is/are being confrontational. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuttee
Sorry about causing the extra work there. Must have copied over the same template twice and didn't notice. Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nude celebrities on the Internet
An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. – iride  scent  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. Tvoz / talk 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Orly Taitz (3rd nomination)
Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. While I agree with the substance of what you say, please could you consider toning down some of the more extreme phrases?— S Marshall Talk /Cont  00:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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.— S Marshall  Talk /Cont  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 archiving it in order to reduce it? Have a look at the source code from my my talkpage on setting it up, or feel free to ask! ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Typo fix.
Thanks. :-) Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Meggan Mallone
Hi. Regarding your edit here, I just wondered why you feel this source is unacceptable, as XBiz always indicate whenever their articles are a press release, such as here. Maybe your views could be incorporated into the guidelines at WikiProject Pornography. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 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. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hank Skinner 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%. grifterlake (talk) 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 Wikipedia policy against original research. The article also includes various completely unsourced allegations against persons living and dead, violating in some cases WP:BLP. Your version of the article, as other editors have noted, is essentially an advocacy piece on behalf of the prisoner, which violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. And your repeated unfounded accusations of vandalism violate Wikipedia policies prohibiting personal attacks and requiring civility. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the applicable policies and conform to them, to avoid the loss of editing privileges.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.  grifterlake (talk) 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rita Jenrette
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. WP:RS, WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Morbidthoughts deleted the same material yesterday, citing WP:PRIMARY 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 Wikipedia policy. Frankly I did not target this user in any way, but merely did what I felt was necessary as an editor. When you looked through my edit history and publicized spelling mistakes that I made, I took it as a personal attack, because it really had no bearing on the discussion at hand. I don't expect people to be perfect and I expect that I too will make mistakes. What I don't expect is to have somebody attempt to embarrass me by pulling it out in a public forum. According to WP:PA, personal attacks are comments on contributors rather than content. Due to the fact that you commented on my occupation and edit history, I took this as an attack. I realize that this may not have been your intent, but it is how it came across. I was not calling your challenging my edits a personal attack. In fact you were correct that the article was not identical, which I did not notice when I typed that comment. I did notice it before the second time I created the redirect, and felt that it wasn't fundamentally different in terms of content determining notability. If you notice, the second conversion to a redirect happened three days after the article was recreated. So yes, I do feel that I afforded him time to improve the article before converting it back to a redirect. If you read the talk page, the editor didn't respond to anything that I had written, but rather just restated his point and undid my revision. My reason for tagging for speedy deletion was to get an administrator's opinion on the whole matter. I don't like edit wars, and I didn't want to be engaged in one. If the speedy was declined I would have left it be and tried to find sources. Which I actually did try to do before I converted to a redirect the first time and the second time. Sources such as  &, which were all top listings on google, had some information, but either just connected him to HP Lovecraft or gave information that really didn't make him notable. For example, my great-great grandfather was considered a master plumber in his time. He was considered the top in his field in Pittsburgh and installed plumbing in many of the major buildings there. The info I have on him reads very similar to Whipple Van Buren Phillips. Does my ancestor merit an article any less because he's not related to anyone famous? My honest feeling is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion as the article stands. I listed it at AFD to form consensus. I stated my opinion, and that's exactly what it is, an opinion. I'm not asking you to agree with me, and in fact I don't expect you to. What I am asking is that you understand where I'm coming from on this, and realize this is not something I did out of the blue to cause problems for another editor, but rather something I felt should be done based on my own research and experience. HarlandQPitt (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Network television schedules
Hi Hull,

Your input at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not would be greatly appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Choice of word for Aubrey O'Day plastic surgery and dating Sean Combs 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 Words to avoid category in this case. I have to state that it does make it sound as though she is lying. Whether we believe whatever she denies in this case to be a lie or not is beside the point, of course. If you have any other suggestions for a word to replace "refuted" (instead of "denied"), I am definitely up to listening to what you have to say about the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "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 WP:AVOID 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 GA and FA 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. Flyer22 (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumdrumdrummer (talk • contribs) 01:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone of edit summary
Please assume good faith. Edit summary comments like "fake support for notability!" on Co-Ed Fever (film) do not support that assumption. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletionism is not a pejorative; it's a philosophical position. 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. Jokestress (talk) 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 WP:NOTFILM, 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from leaving vandal warnings on an editor's page when there was no vandalism to begin with. So, this warning seems kind of redundent, doesn't it.

Having said that, I left a perfectly viable explanation in the edit summary when I originally removed the deletion notice. Did you even bother to look at the deletion header before reverting my edit and leaving me the unnecessary message? Please read the result of the fifth nomination. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 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. --Natet/c 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronweinhaus (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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. Reyemile (talk) 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 70.29.242.22 (talk) 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like your opinion regarding inclusion of rumored future events. Please see Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources 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?Sandcherry (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you. NW ( Talk ) 21:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification. I have denied the accusation at the page specified in the notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case you weren't aware, you are accused of sockpuppetry here. Mike R (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sophia Bush
You removed relevant and sourced material, with the rationale that the information or sources (or both) are too gossipy. I point out that The CW interview, whether a video or not, is a reliable source. E! news is also a reliable source, whether gossipy or not. How is it better to remove information about James Lafferty having dated Sophia Bush simply because you find it "too gossipy"? Flyer22 (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I am not against your other edits and removal of material from this article, and I left those edits intact. It is just the removal of Lafferty and Bush having dated that I objected to, which is why I reinstated it. It is not simply speculation. It was difficult for Chad Michael Murray and Bush to be on set together not only initially because they were previously married...but also because she was now dating one of his co-stars; his speaking out about this is what is in the article. Yes, he was the one to confirm the romance between those two, but I doubt he was lying, and those two have not denied it. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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 here, at Leo van de Pas' genealogy site the entry on Prince Nicolo Boncompagni-Ludovisi, presumably the gentleman in question. Van de Pas's site is obviously self-published, but is generally pretty reliable, and most importantly, he lists his sources. Van de Pas provides the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and The Royal House of Stuart as his sources - those are both reliable sources on royal genealogy which ought to be discoverable in many research libraries. We should try to check them out ourselves, if we can, but I would be very surprised if they turned out to say anything different from Van de Pas' or Sainty's sites. The man's existence, descent from the reigning houses of Piombino, and so forth, seem to be easily discoverable. The marriage to Jenrette should also be sourced, though. I can understand that people doing obnoxious self-promotion on their own Wikipedia article is very annoying, and wish you luck in combatting such silliness, but I think this particular battle is an unnecessary one. john k (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is this, 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 Wikipedia'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. john k (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hi there. I have sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 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

(Trubarbie (talk) 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 WP:OTRS and follow the procedure suggested there. If you or he want certain conent added to the article, you should become familiar with WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the backup help on articles such as Aubrey O'Day and Sophia Bush. I know that you did not decide to watch these articles just to help me out per say, but to rather keep them clean, but the additional help is appreciated. These vandals and other unhelpful or unsourced (or both types of) additions wear me down. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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/wiki/List_of_actors_considered_for_the_James_Bond_character

TMC1982 (talk) 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 wikipedia himself in the event this email is not enough for you to stop making edits to his page.

Many Thanks,

Susette Ashley Garrett- Moore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trubarbie (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 Jimbo Wales -- 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 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 :) OutrageousBenedict (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content
FYI. This RFC is based on, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses which you participated in. Ikip (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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 WP:P* under the useful links section. Dismas |(talk) 02:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)
Since you participated in Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 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. G314X (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.229.211 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not me, sorry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dimitri The Lover
First off HB, thanks for monitoring the very controversial Wikipedia entry for Dimitri The Lover. My name is Shawn and I am his Manager. Please note that when I beefed up Dimitri's entry with additional information, I was fair and DID NOT remove anything that was derogatory, even though much of it is inflammatory and borderline defamatory. I only removed gross innacuracies and reworded misleading sentences. I have provided references for all additions. I may do a bit more rewording for grammar and sentence structure (I'm a real stickler for that) and may also add in more content. My IP Address is static and if you see anything from it please know that it is me. Also, I sometimes use internet cafes, so if any other edits that seem reasonable are made from other IP's and I have noted them to be made by myself, then please provide lattitude. You can see that I have undone some vandalism in the past. I would appreciate you helping us keep a keen eye on this most controversial BLP to ensure no further vandalism. We are in the post-production phase of a Hollywood documentary about Dimitri The Lover, word is slowly leaking out about the "voicemails" being, let's just say, not what they seem, and expect a lot of traffic to this Wikipedia entry. If you need to get in touch with me personally, please go to www.dimitrithelover.com and use our contact, noting that it is for me. I prefer not giving out my direct email here. Thanks once again for being vigilant! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Noel Ashman's page
Hi,

I am quite new to editing on wikipedia but I know and understand how to cite references. I would like to understand why you keep removing the content thats been put up in the past. Especially when a lot of it has to do with movies that he has been a part of that are plainly referenced on imdb.com. If you consider that site not to be reputable then please let me know of a better site than that one because I can't think of any other. Other major hollywood personalities have used imdb.com for sourcing. It is wasting my time and yours to keep taking it down and putting it up again. Julietamyor

Julietamyor (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 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.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.202.18.9 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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 Wikipedia without apparent controversy sure appears to be reliable. Women in her line of work refurbish themselves rather frequently. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI
User talk:71.235.38.171 - Schrandit (talk) 06:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ernie Anastos
Thanks; I'm at 3RR! Looks like you're going to have to find yourself a partner soon...maybe User:Tide rolls is around. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

List of nudity in music videos
Hello! Fixed the article, added a source to confirm my edits. Cheers!