User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 03

Greg Fitzsimmons
Some of your edits are being discussed here:   I thought I should alert you just in case you didn't see them on your own so that you would have an opportunity to respond as well. Hope all is well! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDb references
Is the IMDb reference in this article - Three-Five-Zero-Zero - acceptable IYHO? Thanks 75.182.113.84 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it's acceptable, whih I greatly doubt, a Google Book search turns up more appropriate sources . This might also be helpful . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How about here: Jerry_Springer:_The_Opera? 75.182.113.84 (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here the imdb page isn't used as a reference, just as an external link. But it looks really dubious to me, since it appears to be user-submitted original research and opinion. There should be much better sources out there for anything that might be referenced to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And here: Three Mile Island (ref 15)? 75.182.113.84 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Here? Escape to Witch Mountain (1975 film) 75.182.113.84 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Noel Ashman's Page
Hi, I was following up on the message I left a few days ago and still did not see a detailed response to it. I would really like to fix the page so that it is acceptable by Wikipedia standards and would really appreciate some detailed feedback. Thank you for your time.

Julietamyor

Ref update
Thanks for the improved reference on Clint Catalyst! As a result, I spent some more time working on the paragraph (for example, I noticed Darren Stein's name was misspelled). I see you're pretty much a Wiki black-belt, so I hope you think I've done a good job. Thanks again for looking out for me! Feather Jonah (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruth Rosen
I noticed you removed alot of content from Ruth Rosen, perhaps an AfD is in order? abc518 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article subject is notable; but it's hard to get someone familiar with the field to work on the article when Rosen herself comes in regularly, wipes out the text, and pastes in a promotional (auto)biography. Needs time for things to settle down. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. abc518  (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cytherea (person)
I don not understand why we can not use her real name. Several porn actresses have their real names in the articles, like Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress). It was even sourced. Glumpbaar (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, birthnames/real names for pornographic performers must be reliably sourced, and neither IMDB nor retailer/VOD sites are considered reliable sources. See, for example, the comments from Wikiproject:Pornography.  Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress) is something of a special case; she claims to be performing under her real name, so any claims that she isn't are subject to WP:BLP, and there is a strong argument that she'd have been sued into the ground by that well-known supermodel if there's any doubt about it. I don't know how to resolve this case, so I've left it alone.  In general, these real name IDs are usually sourced to mainstream news sources, because the issue is sensitive. See Crystal Gunns, for example, or Racquel Darrian. (And while looking for examples of good cites, I found and removed another IMDB-only citation, there's still cleanup left to do.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Leah Hackett
How does who she previously dated hold no encyclopedic significance? I've seen plenty of GAs. It's not gossip either as it's clearly sourced. I'd also like to remind you of the 3RR rule. --Jimbo[online] 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nina Carter
Hi, I'd appreciate you leaving the information about Nina Carter's cameo in American Werewolf in London in her article. The information is accurate, it's not contentious, it's not BLP and you keep removing it without leaving notes. If you refuse to desist, I would at least like your guidance on how we can arrive at a mutually acceptable scenario, rather than the unilateral removal of accurate information? Much obliged! 17.22 28 Sep 09 (BST)
 * Unsourced, speculative "information" isn't allowed in a WP:BLP. Unreferenced quotations generally aren't allowed at all. There's never been an explanation as to how/why details about a film cameo bear on her real life, especially since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer. When multiple experienced editors repeatedly remove the same content with the same explanation ("unsourced"), that should be a signal that the content shouldn't be added back without reliable sourcing.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point: 'since the details are about what might have happened in the film if a sequence had run longer'. I have got a single clue what you're alluding to here. However, there's no explanantion as to how why details about a film cameo bear on Ms Carter's life. It is relevant to her career though, and accurate, and her cameo is now mentioned solely as being in the film, without the copy that seems to so aggrieve your sensibilities. Your style of editing seems to others to be overly fussy but I'm hoping that the current article meets with your exacting standards.

Please leave it alone now. Thanks. 20:24 BST 28/9/09
 * Why did you not provide a proper reference rather than argue and edit war with him over this? The burden of verifying information is on the person who adds any information. If anything is so accurate and relevant, it would be reported by third party reliable sources. I easily found a reference using google books. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the information. 22.24 BST 28/9/09.
 * What do you call these edits by your ip address? Even if you are not the original author, you still added the information back without the appropriate citations in your edit war. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I call them 'reverting vandalism'. 09.11 BST 29/9.09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.175 (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it whatever you want but continuing to edit war in defiance of policy will get you blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it will get you blocked also, am I right? 80.229.187.175 22.40 BST 29/9/09
 * I'm not the one edit warring over this so the answer is no. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring will get you blocked, yes. Save the inarticulate and thinly veiled threats for someone who cares for your opinion. Thanks for putting the citation up though! 80.229.187.175 13.38 BST 30/9/09

Removal of PROD from Tamara Lee
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Tamara Lee has been removed. It was removed by Garion96 with the following edit summary ' (rm prod, not sure about this one) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Garion96 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to take part in the article's current AfD. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: edit conflict
I opened a discussion here --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Winger/Polanski
Hi HW - I think the issue on Debra Winger goes beyond sourcing - see my comment on Talk:Debra Winger and see if you agree or disagree and perhaps we can get a dialog going rather than what's been happening. Thanks! Tvoz / talk 18:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Gerry Ryan
So a story in the two major newspapers and from the national broadcaster in a country where public figures will sue you ( and done so in the past ) for getting the slightest thing wrong when reporting on them is not RS .Good Grief .Garda40 (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please pay attention to the details. No matter who publishes them, rumors are generally not encyclopedic. Articles that simply report that rumors are circulating are not considered reliable sources for articles which assert or otherwise indicate that the rumors are true. WP:BLP is quite clear that the central concern is to "get the article right," not to republish speculative, "titillating" claims made elsewhere, whether they're grounds for lawsuits or not. Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.

The Ogdens (band)
This is a direct recreation (I think word-for-word, but as I'm not an admin I can't see the text of the deleted version) of an article The Ogdens which was deleted.

The article was created, discussed at length for a week, and then deleted on the 18th Sept. On the 24th, it was recreated and speedily deleted:


 * 18:23, 24 September 2009 R'n'B (talk | contribs) deleted "The Ogdens" ‎ (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (CSD G4))
 * 01:56, 18 September 2009 Backslash Forwardslash (talk | contribs) deleted "The Ogdens" ‎ (Articles for deletion/The Ogdens)

I am curious as to why you have declined a speedy deletion, as this is an article which was decided should not be in Wikipedia, and from what I can see there is no difference between the current article and the deleted version.

I thought I would ask you before I put this up for deletion again, in case you were not aware of the recent history of this article (did you read the AfD discussion before removing the Speedy Delete notice, for example?)

I will give you a little while to respond, but by tonight if I have not heard from you, I will proceed to put this up for deletion again.

Regards, --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR complaint about Anne Applebaum
I don't see four reverts, either by you or Krakatoa. The last version of the article that you saved makes no mention of the Polanski issue at all. Do you think it deserves no coverage in the article? Due to some recent improvements, the current version seems more neutral. So all in all, there no longer is a huge problem. I'm not seeing either edit warring or BLP at the moment, except perhaps there are too many references for people being annoyed at Applebaum over the Polanski thing, and this could be slightly over the top. If you still have reservations, maybe they can be explored on the article talk, and the 3RR report could be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't follow your argument at all. That Krakatoa made 4 reverts to the article in little more than an hour is unmistakable. Note that the "base" version of the article includes a paragraph beginning "In September 2009, Applebaum wrote two opinion pieces in the Washington Post defending Roman Polanski." Each of the four edits by Krakatoa that I cited restores that exact text, whose inclusion in the article was disputed by multiple editors, including me. I don't see how this cannot be a 3RR violation. Krakatoa should be cautioned on this point; simply inserting variations on disputed content without altering a significantly disputed claim isn't a loophole to 3RR. Some of the BLP issues also center on this phrasing -- it's an unsourced, contentious statement regarding the article subject, a subjective interpretation of Applebaum's writings, and therefore clearly inappropriate article content. And I also don't see why you summarily dismiss the conclusion that several editors, again including myself, reach regarding the applicability of WP:BLP and the disproportionate emphasis placed on this matter in the context of Applebaum's career. Could your please explain your reasoning on these points? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now closed the case. After further study, I have changed my view and now agree with you that the first of the four listed edits by Krakatoa was a revert, in the sense given at WP:REVERT: "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors." EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein
There is nothing "uncivil" or "intellectually dishonest" about warning someone about deleting content without a valid rationale, as I explained politely in that post, which had nothing to do with mere "disagreement" with your edit. Which part of my post do you disagree with? That you're not supposed to delete content because it is badly formatted or written? That's true. That three people opined that that material should remain, including one who offered Third Opinion as part of a request I made to address your concerns? That is also true. If you wanted to refute this, and continue to contest that material's inclusion, then you what you should do is start a consensus discussion on the Talk Page, and not engage in edit warring by removing it again after others decided it should remain. What is actually uncivil and intellectually dishonest is removing my warning to you and falsely labeling it vandalism with the Edit Summuary "rvv". I suggest you not make false accusations of vandalism, since at this point, you should know that a warning against content removal, even if you feel it is unwarranted, does not constitute vandalism. Nightscream (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Broad
I reverted your reversion edit of my edit of Stuart Broad, as you clearly had not read the reference at the end of the sentence, which confirms both his existing and former girl friends. Before suggesting anything is "gossip" check the references first. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, it is gossip, whether it's accurate or not. Second, since you didn't provide a link for the supposed reference, it wasn't possible to check it directly, and my first google search didn't immediately turn up a version of the report including that claim. If you don't fully source claims in BLPs, especially claims naming someone other than the article subject, you should expect to see them removed. I accept per WP:AGF that the claim is actually there. But, third, I have great doubts about the encyclopedic significance of information about the "former girl friends" of low-grade celebrities, especially in the absence of any nontrivial consequences on their lives/careers. The extent to which such minutaie are included in articles seems to be inversely related to the significance of the article subject, unless you believe that, for example, Meryl Streep, Jay Leno, Alec Guinness, and Julianne Moore never dated anyone other than their respective spouses. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratan Naval Tata
Provide the source that you believe the user has copied from. You are crossing 3RR. If there are so many sources then provide at least one. warrior 4321  20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Flores
Now restored and written in order not to violate wiki policies on copyright. Can I suggest that in future if you do not agree with a particular piece of information in an article that you try to challenge that properly rather than get rid of the whole article. We can all go around deleting everything we don't like, but it's not particularly productive. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that all but two words in the original version of the article you "created" were cut-and-pasted from a copyrighted book, you argument doesn't make a bit of sense. You should review Wikipedia's copyright policies, which call for the speedy deletion of obvious copyright violations like the one you committed. That's why the previous version of the article was deleted by an independent admin who reviewed the proper challenge I made to the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Siouxsie Sioux
Re: Other references. I cannot reference directly into the game (world of warcraft). I'll include other references. Do you have any ideas on this? Michaelbarreto (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to find a third-party source which has reported this -- a gaming magazine or a music magazine are the most likely sources to turn up. Official documentation from the game publisher might also be helpful, but I doubt they'd admit this openly, for fear of lawsuit. You might also find it mentioned on her official site, but that's not too likely either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

phrasing of the question can shift an answer
Just to point out that 18c included the phrase "... but you disagree with them even after they present their rationale ...". I took that to imply that I still wanted to have a block installed, and was questioning whether I would do so unilaterally, which I would not. Certainly if I came to the conclusion that discussion on ANI would be pointless, I'd drop it before posting there.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

re:Stephanie Swift
You're right, I should have chosen a better source. It turns out that Chickpedia is a user editable source, not reliable. The idea that she changed her name is not that contentious. She has mentioned so in an interview and the last name of her mother is listed on multiple news releases. I added the birthname again using IMDb as a source. Stillwaterising (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can find nothing of the reliable sort to prove this. It's most likely true, but for now it will have to be left alone. Stillwaterising (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson
She's back. Now that the articles have been semi-protected, she's editing them under her own account, so at least we can show that all the edits are from the same person. Care to lend a hand with the reverts, and/or to make her see reason? -- Zsero (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I put a detailed warning on her talk page, although (unsurprising, after 11 reverts on one article) she was blocked shortly thereafter. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was wary of continuing the edit war on my own; I've been down that rabbit-hole before.  -- Zsero (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quick FYI about Andrew Warde
Hi,

Just a follow-up on your edit summary when you removed the first G12 speedy tag on the above: While the source was published in 1910, it's the date of the death of the author that is relevant, and as far as I could ascertain, George Kemp Ward passed away in 1937, leaving his works under copyright for a few more years. I have therefore deleted the article accordingly. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I beleve you should give this one another look. As WP:Copyright FAQ states, works published before 1923 are presumed to be in the public domain under US law, and there is no indication this book was published or copyrighted anywhere but the US. Moreover, the book is listed in the Internet Archive, generally a reliable reference, as having an expired copyright. As I noted in my removal of the speedy notice, the possible copyright claims would be complex, not self-evident; this would not be an unambiguous copyright violation, and therefore is not suitable for speedy deletion. If you believe the public domain claim is not valid, the article should have been subject to the (non-speedy) process for evaluating possible copyright violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct and the mistake was mine, thanks for pointing it out so that I could redress it. MLauba (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Budania
FYI. You did not address the "notability" issue in your post. Perhaps, the lack of notability is the strongest reason for deletion. (Even stronger than the absence of a single reliable source?) Articles_for_deletion/Budania —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason For Redirct?
Can you please add you reasons for why you did this on the talk page Talk:Sal the Stockbroker I requested a review of it, you should add why you think it should be redirected. 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be seen here Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 98.117.40.154 (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Explained (twice) in the edit summaries. This page is a borderline speedy deletion candidate, since it has no independent/third-party sourcing and its text is devoted to disparaging the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Donatella Diamani
What am I not understanding correctly?

I placed a list of references to print publications in which Dontella Diamani appeared. These were removed, citing "unrefereced laundry list, primary sources at best, not generally included."

Dontatella Diamani is an 80s Italian sex symbol and has appeared in numerous centerfolds. To support that claim I thought the idea was to provide sources, including primary sources, and I supplied a few, down to specific page numbers. Why is it important to censor the fact that she has appeared in pictorals? WHy is it important to remove a pictoral section reference? That would only detract from her fame as a 70s-80s Italian sex symbol, would it not? Mouseydung (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From the reliable sources guideline: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. . . . Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Wikipedia's verifiability policy sets the crucial test as "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." When you provide a list of magazine appearances, rather than a secondary source saying something like "Diamani appeared in pictorials in many men's magazines like Playboy and Playmen," your claim is not verifiable in the sense that Wikipedia policy uses the term. Instead, the user must repeat your (original) research to see whether the claim is true. Sometimes claims that are easily and directly checked may be supported by primary sources -- for example, the claim that "Actress X appeared in a cover-featured pictorial in the [specific date] issue of Playboy" is sometimes supported by a link to the cover of the issue -- but it is better practice to link instead to a news story on the subject, or to a page on the magazine's website reporting the appearance (second-best).  This has nothing to do with censorship. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Toni Basil
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out, the user in question has been making various edits to the article which are substantially identical to those made by User:Tbasil930, who identified themselves as "Team Basil." The user in question has inserted a significant number of deadlinks and spurious if not outright phony references, including sourcing promotional claims with a general link to the artist's own website. The appearance of COI is certainly present, and I think it's vandalism for that user to repeatedly remove the template without meaningfully addresing it. I think you should restore the template and allow discussion to proceed. If you take a look at the article history, you'll also see that the bulk of the disputed content (well beyond the COI notice) was repeatedly removed by several established editors, myself included, but added back this morning without consensus. I think that adding the COI notice was preferable to edit warring the content itself; the template was added in good faith and is reasonable, and should not have been removed before the debate is resolved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning(s)

 * Please stop edit warring.
 * If you see that a source does not support the exact claim of the article, you can rewrite the CLAIM. Do NOT simply delete sources. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In simple terms, No. The cited source does not support the claim "often," as you acknowledge, and the single mention is not itself encyclopedically notable. It is clearly not appropriate for you to reinsert a claim you acknowledge to be false, especially in a BLP. It is not edit warring to remove a claim that is undisputedly false Remember as well that the burden lies with the user trying to keep disputed content, especially poorly sourced content in a BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverting someone continuously is edit warring. And let me repeat what I said - you can rewrite the CLAIM. Do NOT simply delete sources. Secondly, the source was not completely improper as it did support the claim only that the phrasing was not very good. So by bold and rephrase. Hope I made it clearer to you this time around. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The source absolutely did not support the claim. Once is not "often." Phil Spector did not "often" shoot and kill women. It's no one's responsibility but yours to write content which conforms to sources. WP:BLP calls for removal of inaccurate, badly sourced content from BLPs, and if you don't accept that than you shouldn't be editing BLPs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

George Michael edit
Hello. You just deleted an entry I made on the George Michael article on the basis that you believed it was "non-constructive". That is a matter of personal point of view as many parts of the article could be considered to be non-constructive to the over all article. Please explain further on the George Michael discussion page before making arbitrarily deletions. Thank you. Artemisboy (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The exact reason was "nonconstructive edits raising BLP issues." You inserted poorly sourced, partly unsourced derogatory material into the biography of a living person. WP:BLP calls for such material to be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Celebitchy.com is a tabloid site, not a reliable source. gminfopage.com is a self-published source which cannot be used as a BLP reference. thedeadbolt.com appears to be nothing more than the standard, unreliable tabloid aggregation page and is used to source a wholly gratuitous negative reference to a nonnotable person who Wikipedia policy demands be left alone.  "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see your point on the tabloid site and will search for a more reputible source. In the meanwhile, the autobiography Bare stands on it's own merit as being released by George Michael. Because of this I am re-entering it in the book section, which is where it should be. Artemisboy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ricky Martin
Hi there..i noticed you reverted my addition to the article...as it being non-reliable sources...if so..what sources would be reliable and allowed..ancestry.com and the US census websites...??..the website that is sued seems to be the only one with the paternal side referenced..and in no doubt have more added to his paternal Martin and morales maternal sid when the information is available..the reference that is used for his Corsican great-4 grandfather is still used there which wasnt deleted..although it seems to have enough detail on the negorni side rearched..anyway..give me your views..and ill try to wearch for another website that gives the same info which isnt user edited..although this 'Negroni family tree' is only edited by ONE person..not many...in the website it says he sues the us census and ancestry.com to research the family. ..maybe better to discuss this on the talk page to get further opinions on this..thankyou. Puertorico1 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about genealogy sites to give you a good answer. But I'd be very careful about using anything from ancestry.com. In general, Wikipedia treats sources which allow their users to contribute content without a rigorous review process (including Wikipedia itself) as failing its standards for reliable sources, and therefore unusable as references for articles regarding living persons.  The FamilyTreeMaker section of ancestry.com consists mainly if not entirely of user-submitted content, and ancestry.com's homepage reports a very heavy volume of user contributions under the headline "FROM ANCESTRY MEMBERS THIS WEEK" . I'd stick to whatever is documented in news/magazine articles and books. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ohh.thanks, the only family members mentioned in the news and books are his parents and his grandmother who he talks about as being an influence..further than that, i cant find. .maybe that small amount can be added then, since there are many people like bill gates, John Mccain etc, ancestry which is documented also in their article by another website, although not in a tree like table. anyway..does that mean if he was dead that this would be ok to use this as a source.? Puertorico1 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Notice
This report may interest you. It seems to be related to Sal the Stockbroker. On an unrelated note, you should consider archiving your talk page as it's takes several seconds to load. Regards. — ξ xplicit  06:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James
Which BLP guidelines does that material fail? Nightscream (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." A current custody dispute involving a six-year-old child is generally unrelated to the subject's notability and has no demonstrable encyclopedic value. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The custody battle is widely reported in mainstream news media. It is part of the subject's notability. BLP does not demand removal of the controversial when it is well sourced. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes it does. See WP:WELLKNOWN, as well as the privacy concerns in WP:BLPNAME. Perhaps there might be room for a short statement when the matter is resolved, but certainly not the inclusion of the allegations made by one side in a custody. We're not talking about the Gosselins here, and we're talking about a brief flurry of lowgrade celebrity journalism, not sustained coverage. If James weren't married to Sandra Bullock, this wouldn't have received anything like the press it had, so there's also the principles behind WP:NOTINHERITED to consider. But most of all, we're exposing the details of the private life of a not-even-six-year-old child to the world, and "this news organization did it first" just isn't an adequate excuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My reading of WELLKNOWN and BLP in general does not excise mention of the custody battle. I don't see anything in BLP that says we must wait until a controversy is resolved before mentioning it in the respective articles. I agree that unverified allegations from either side of the custody battle has no place in wikipedia BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedural AfD
Hey there. One of the articles you tagged for proposed deletion, Leanni Lei, was contested after deletion. I undeleted the article and nominated it for deletion quoting your prod rationale. Just thought I would let you know. NW ( Talk ) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer reported to Wikipedia; Numerous complaints against Wolfowitz
Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has been reported to the Help discussion page regarding several items. I request to have a discussion with you regarding your questionable edits, changes and undos to the Amy Grant page, including one that undid much of my work. I also call into question your admittance regarding following Wikipedia policy (above), hounding from other editors for your past actions and unpredictable and erratic behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds )


 * I'd like to comment on the behaviour of Hullabaloo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. His "contributions" are mostly destructive where he undoes and deletes what other people contribute in a a very offhanded manner. I think that he's vandalizing pages. It may be a better idea for him to be more constructive in his editing. Instead of merely deleting or undoing, perhaps he should consider fixing the problem himself. Try and do some of the work in creating pages of high quality. This would be a more collaborative approach and more in line with what Wikipedia is all about. I'm sure that his intentions are very honourable, however, I believe that he needs a more constructive approach to editing pages. I hope that my comment is perceived as constructive because that was my intention. Michaelbarreto (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds )

This is another complaint against Wolfowitz. This volunteer has repeatedly made destructive and erratic changes to a popular wiki page though he/she apparently has no other purpose or reason than to exert his own influence and will on content. Wolfowitz's misguided efforts are hurting wikipedia and the valuable contributions of editors who work hard to make wikipedia a positive environment where collective efforts create good content. Dougmac7 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC) (Moved to user talk page by TheFeds )

ANI
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Frmatt (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Hullaballoo!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just letting you know somebody pasted the following (within the quotes) on my talk page -- "What do you mean by this? YOu wrote that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz deserves an award for being a "great watchdog" on wikipedia. Yet, several people have written major complaints about his destructive changes to pages that he has no connection to? Please explain why you are the only one who thinks he is doing good work. He himself wrote in his bio page that many people hounded him about his erratic changes to pages. Why is he apparently targeting my work? I have worked on two pages in the past 2 weeks- and he continually undoes my work without giving any explanation and without discussing though I specifically ask people to discuss before changing the content."

And then they didn't sign it. Generally I remember that your contributions to Dana Delany and Gerald Celente were positive and constructive, and I appreciate your advice and help with both of those articles. I also appreciate that you weeded out poorly sourced stuff, and dubious references, and alerted me about how some sources were bogus (and I agree with you, and I don't use them any more). So, just letting you know I appreciate your work! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jerome Vered
I'm still not seeing how he meets notability. I've found the same sources as you now, but all I'm seeing is a two-sentence mention in a book on Jeopardy! and incidental coverage following his Jeopardy! win. Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thunder Collins and Eva Mendes
Hello, I did a Courtesy Blank on Thunder Collins.

I did not intentionally mean to "attack" him and apologize that it came off that way.

I searched for a page for him on Wikipedia and found none, so decided to start one. The only recent info that I had was the current info about his situation.

I assumed that others would come along and add to his biography, but instead it was viewed as an attack on the person, which it wasn't.

It seems that I have come under attack by a few users on my posts, but I have made posts without logging in previously that were not viewed as spam.

It's weird that once I joined and started posting as a logged in user, I became a target.

I subscribe to a Celeb/News Blog and when info comes through the Feed, I check Wikipedia to see if it has already been posted and provide a Source.

Blogs as sources are allowed from what I have read in the policies. It would be unfair for a Source to have to be a big name news site.

If my source was a particular blog, then that is what I cite.

I've also noticed that many times Users will delete my source, but keep the news from that source reported. This is not how I understood Wikipedia to work. Anything that I post deserves to have a source added to it. So, if a blog is my source, why should I not give them credit for it.

According to the Guidelines that I have read, we are first to assume that the Editor is editing in Good Faith. I have been, but many have simply attacked me as a spammer without considering that I provided valid info on a topic.

Please talk with me before the threats of Blocking me. I am not a spammer, just an eager User. Now, that I have joined and started posting under my User name, I have seen the True Colors of Wikipedia. My anonymous posts are still untouched somehow, but they also link to various blogs.

Please advise if I should begin posting anonymously again, since I did not have these sorts of issues before. My content and sources were considered valid then and should be considered valid now.

Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Under Wikipedia's policy regarding articles concerning living persons, blogs are generally not allowed as sources. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material."  Under Wikipedia's general policy regarding article sources, "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable."
 * I can't speak about your prior anonymous contributions without more information, but it certainly appears as though every prior edit using the "Ralphie Boy Blog" as a source has been removed.
 * Issues relating to the Thunder Collins article are now being debated under the Wikipedia standard article deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess my main concern here is that many of the posts themselves were not deleted, so it appears that the CONTENT was acceptable. No problem though, it appears that Wikipedia doesn't consider "small" sources as valid sources which is ashame. Many times, blogs, etc., have new info before it even hits news sources. No prob, I guess I'll keep posting, but will only give "news" sites despite the fact that it may not have come from them. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As one of the editors that has been removing your (Niac7) links to blogs, I guess I should comment here. First, you've misrepresented the situation. I would like to correct those misrepresentations here:
 * "I have made posts without logging in previously that were not viewed as spam. It's weird that once I joined and started posting as a logged in user, I became a target."
 * Incorrect. Posts made by User:96.25.163.229 and User:198.203.191.61 and User:198.203.191.59  (also you?) have also been removed or edited. Your edits were removed because they violated Wikipedia policy, not because of who made them.
 * "Blogs as sources are allowed from what I have read in the policies."
 * Incorrect. Blogs are almost always not allowed, as explained by H. Wolfowitz above.
 * "I've also noticed that many times Users will delete my source, but keep the news from that source reported."
 * Sometimes, but rarely and only temporarily while more appropriate sources are found. Such as in this example, where the Ralphie Boy citation was replaced by an Associated Press source.
 * "According to the Guidelines that I have read, we are first to assume that the Editor is editing in Good Faith. I have been, but many have simply attacked me as a spammer without considering that I provided valid info on a topic."
 * You are correct that we are to assume good faith. But sometimes, when we see edits like this, where you do not add any content at all, and instead only add a link to your blog, one's good faith might be tested.  There have been editors in the past that have tried to increase traffic to their own websites by spamming links to those websites throughout Wikipedia articles.
 * "Many times, blogs, etc., have new info before it even hits news sources."
 * This is correct; but that information on blogs is also often filled with errors, incomplete, false or defamatory content. Blogs do not have editorial oversight, like reputable newspapers and and magazines; that's why we don't use blogs. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I also see that you put the Thunder Collins back up. I Created that article and you said it was an attack. So now, I went in to do a Courtesy Blank and it is back up. Once again, you have kept the content, but you have a problem with my sources. This is very hypocritical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niac7 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Northumbrian saints
Ah, the articles themselves looked different to the ones on Wikipedia on the saints. On AllExperts.com I'm sure I've seen before articles where they have one person just writing something out, is this right? - Yorkshirian (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Allexperts.com does have original material, but it also has a huge collection of pages copied from Wikipedia. I'm not positive, but I believe all the pages with URLs beginning http://en.allexperts.com/e/ are mirrored, while their other pages are original. (The /e/ indicating "encyclopedia," which generally means wikipedia. URLs beginning http://en.allexperts.com/q/ in contrast present original content, responding to questions from users).
 * Their "encyclopedia" pages often look different from current Wikipedia pages because they don't do a very good job of updating their pages as our articles change; for example, their article of Eadfrith of Lindisfarne apparently hasn't been updated since 2005 or so; it corresponds to the earliest version of the Wikipedia page . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

She's at it again
Special:Contributions/Priscila Herig -- Zsero (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and that's four. -- Zsero (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What a day. I got blocked this morning for reverting her three times; I've been unblocked by another admin, who agreed that Priscila's edits constitute vandalism.  -- Zsero (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Our friend seems not to have noticed my edit, which took out the only substantive content she's trying to add to the article. She's now reverting to my version, isn't she? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, she's now only reverting All Hallow Wraith's edits, either because she didn't notice, or because her only purpose now is to make a point. -- Zsero (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And there she goes again. Could you please help out with the reverting, if only so that the next admin who comes along doesn't make the same mistake Chamal N made yesterday, and think this is all me? -- Zsero (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ann-Margret
Hi, I noticed the revision you made for Ann-Margret 15 minutes ago. If you're a confirmed user, can you get a look at the color photograph that someone deleted in 2008? I recall distinctly seeing it in the article before that time. It's such a great picture of her that it should go back in. What copyright issues, if any, were/are at stake? Thanking you in advance for your attention. Photodouble (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't actually know what issues were at stake, but judging by the caption, it fails Wikipedia's internal policies regarding the use of copyrighted images (WP:FU). The image file itself has been deleted, and I don't have access to it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Special school
I don't see why you endorsed it. I have provided enough reasons and still you endorsed it. Rovea (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tina Reid/Louise Germaine
So, basically, are you maintaining that the actress "Louise Germaine" is not the former glamour model born as Tina Reid, who worked under that name and a number of other pseudonyms? Nick Cooper (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I'm insisting that you not introduce a claim of that nature into the relevant article(s) unless it meets the requirements for reliable sourcing and the stringent requirements of WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your problem is that you're asking for an unreasonable standard of explicit verification for something that happened 22 years ago that was - understandably - dealt with circumspectly at the time. The basic facts, though, are that "Tina Reid" appeared nude in the March 1987 Vol. 22/No. 3 issue of Mayfair, in which it was stated that it was her first modelling work, and claiming that she had just turned 17, even though it now seems widely accepted that she was born in 1971, and so wouldn't actually reach that age until 1988.


 * At the time, back-issues of Mayfair were usually available from the publishers for several years after publication, but whilst 22/3 was listed as available in 22/4 & 22/5, it was not subsequently. Reid went on to further modelling work under a variety of pseudonyms, including the differently-spelled "Tina Reed," "Trixie Buckingham," etc. That Reid is "Louise Germaine" is not disputed.


 * A report in the Daily Express on 21/08/93 (p. 35) gives Louise Germaine's age as 21, suggesting she must have been born no earlier than 22/08/71. Even allowing a couple of months for error (i.e. back to c. 20/06/71), she would clearly have been 15 when the Mayfair set was published, let alone when the photographs were actually taken. An earlier Daily Express report (Sat 20/03/93 p. 27) at the time Lipstick on Your Collar was first transmitted specifically states:
 * "Her foray into topless modelling began when she was 15. After a few years she got sick of the life style."
 * I rest my case, and will therefore be reinstating the content to the Mayfair page. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Even If you think the requirements of WP:BLP are unreasonable, you shouldn't make controversial edits to BLPs in defiance of them. If you really want to press the case, you should present it at the BLP noticeboard rather than edit warring in order to insert policy-violating content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing more to discuss. The entirely legitimately citable Express piece clearly states she was 15, and I note that another editor has provides a rock-solid citation that "Louise Germaine" is Tina Reid. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, take the discussion to BLP. You do not have any reliable sources saying the two persons are the same, at best only a claim that one of many pseudonyms used by a model corresponds to the reported birth name of an actress, and too much of your argument is based on the reliability of the usually fictional text accompanying a pictorial in a softcre porn magazine. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It may have escaped your notice, but an eminently reliable source (the biography Potter on Potter) has already been added to corroborate that Louise Germaine is/was Tina Reid. Are you disputing that, as well? This is, of course, quite apart from the fact that "Louise Germaine" looks exactly like the photos attributed to Tina Reid/Tina Reed/Trixie Buckingham/etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It has escaped your attention that the fact that a model's pseudonym corresponds to a person's birthname does not mean that the model and the person are one and the same -- especially when the model is known by various pseudonyms, often assigned by a photographer or publisher rather than the model herself. It also seems to have escaped your notice that the remaining claims in the paragraph you want to insert lack both reliable sources and significance in context, so it's not appropriate to include in the article anyway. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no suggestion that "Tina Reid" was a pseudonym used by the model, only that the names she subsequently used were. Reid was described in Mayfair of March 1987 as coming from Margate, Kent, and that she had just moved from her mother's home to a place of her own. In the Daily Express of 27/08/93 (p. 35) "Germaine" was described as, "a former nude model from Margate, in Kent..." An interview with "Germaine" in The Guardian of 24/10/96 corroborates a childhood in Margate and states, "By the age of 15 she had had enough (of Margate) and came to London in 1986." The chances of all that being a coincidence must be astronomical; "Louise Germaine" looking exactly like Tina Reid would be completely off the scale. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a source actually making the identification. All the rest violates WP:NOR. Nothing you cite from Mayfair satisfies WP:RS, by the way.  Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And the fact that the Tina Reid looks exactly like "Louise Germaine"? Why is Mayfair uncitable? Where is the specific page on Wikipedia that says it is not? Nick Cooper (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOR. WP:RS. EOD Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So where exactly does it say in either of those that Mayfair is uncitable? It seems to me that you've argued yourself into a corner because you didn't actually expect anyone could demonstrate that "Louise Germaine" is/was Tina Reid. The bottom line is that at the time Lipstick on Your Collar was broadcast, "Louise Germaine" was almost immediately identified as the glamour model who used numerous pseudonyms, but started her career under her real name of Tina Reid, the latter confirmed for "Germaine" in the Dennis Potter biography. A perfectly reputable source - i.e. the Daily Express - clearly stated that she was 15 when that career began. It seems you spend all your time on Wikipedia purging uncited details, but what is your motivation for this particular piece of revisionism? Nick Cooper (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, 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. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Reasons why you've characterized description of subject's video, subject's own links, as "spam"
(1) Can you please read Talk:Iman Crosson and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of an objective description of a subject's own prior video as supposedly being spam? (A major part of the subject's notability is the very activity of producing videos.). . . . . (2) Similar request: please read Talk:Iman Crosson and explain your 22 Nov 2009 removal of links to some of subject's own websites as supposedly being spam. Thank you. RCraig09 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

John De Groot
Did you take a look at the previously deleted version? -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to it, and I don't see how it could be relevant. If the tone of this version bothers you, simply clean out whatever language you feel to be excessively peacock in nature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Brad Hunt (disambiguation)
Enjoy! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I'd again like to thank the many editors and admins who've been dealing with the current vandalism sprees on my user and talk pages and the user/talk pages of other editors, especially those who've themselves become targets of the vandal as a consequence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Veronika Zemanová
Yeah, I was uncertain on this one, so I undeleted it because I couldn't really tell from my short search if she was a playmate or not. If not, put a speedy tag on it and I'll delete. Dreadstar ☥  18:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah! On further investigation, I can find no indication of notability that meets Wikipedia policy, so I've deleted the article and left a note for the editor who was advocating for her.  Dreadstar  ☥  03:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * She's not a Playmate, they won't shoot anyone who has appeared nude elsewhere first. Was first shot by J. Stephen Hicks and appeared at ddgirls.com in 1998, then as a Penthouse centerfold in '99 I believe. I was the producer of that site then & remember her first day on the job. No sense of humor that one. Lexlex (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage
Do you want me to semiprotect it longterm (or indefinitely) ? J.delanoy gabs adds 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, figured you could use this, man...

Cheers! Outback the koala (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo?
Hi HW, I think you have a typo in your recent comment at the gay porn performer AfD. You say that 62 items are sourced to the Adam 2004 directory, then you say 29 items are sourced to the same directory. Should one of those be a different year? (BTW, you might think about archiving some old discussions from this page - it's rather large. :) )
 * Thanks, I've fixed the date to 1999. One of the footnotes in the article was glitched, and I didn't catch it (or the fact that there was another footnote with more cites to the 1999 directory.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA question
I saw your question, but I have to be off the internet for a few hours and will respond once I get back online. Just wanted to alert you on this as I responded elsewhere on the RfA. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff 
 * That's fine; it's a (deliberately) pointed question and it concerns a significant, complex issue. I'd hoped you'd take some time to consider your answer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Scott Storch
I wanna give you some due credit - good job cleaning up that page. MattDredd (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tina Turner
No, you didn't miss anything. The link I have to the article isn't one that is available to the passerby as it is to a subscription site. There isn't a requirement that sourcing be available online or a link provided for a reference for it to be valid. I added an abbreviated link to the article that brings up the same page instead of the detailed one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

General Question
Hi established wikipedia editor. I have a question. For example, Glenn Gilberti - his name is spelt wrong here. How do I edit the main heading so that it'll be "Glenn Gilbertti" (with two ts). I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Thanks in advance. Marty2Hotty (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, you need a solid, reliable source to establish the spelling. I did a quick search, found that both spellings are used, but that "Gilberti" is used about five times more frequently online, and is also clearly the more common spelling in news sources. So I wouldn't change the spelling until you get consensus on the article's talk page. If you do, the process would be to move the page rather than edit the title (it can't be edited directly). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- Hullaballoo... I know Glenn, and he has done interviews and written columns on WrestleZone.com - his last name is spelt Gilbertti. He also has a facebook page - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730862806 - that is his real spelling. His name has been spelt incorrectly in news sources because he used to go by his alias "Disco Inferno". Can you guide me through the process of moving the article? Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

- Update - I have moved the article to "Glenn Gilbertti" myself after going through the help pages on wikipedia regarding how to move articles. I know this is the correct spelling and it has been confirmed on columns on wrestlezone.com - http://www.wrestlezone.com/editorials/article/random-thoughts-belts-are-props-part-one-58899 is an example. Thanks again for your help. Marty2Hotty (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools notable?
You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) since you were one of the editors whose consensus inspired that debate. ɳoɍɑfʈ Talk! 05:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ophélie Bretnacher
Dear Hullaballoo, The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a problem of non-judicial and police cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. is a matter concerningth are human rights and democracy in Europe espacially France and Hungary Best regards

1 -Many people in Paris are reading this discussion page and have pointed out that Hell in a Bucket looked alone to decide. Moreover he has also noticed on another page, I was suspected of creating pages for films that do not exist ????? What this new charge yet?

2 - is it normal, that Hell in a Bucket notifie that "that time is not now" at 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC) than the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article ? 3

3 - What do other people think, now that they know that it is not a commemoration page, but the page on The Ophélie Bretnacher case wich is very important in France and Hungary, butnot for you, we have seen ? The problem is really, are you open for other civilisations here in U.S.A ? Or your Wiki in english is it just for american knowledge ?

Raymondnivet (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Book series covers
Hey Hullabaloo, I seem to remember your being involved in a WP:NFCC discussion about having book series cover images in articles about the series of books, was there ever a resolution to that question? It was regarding these IFD's, and now the same covers are, per this reasoning. Dreadstar ☥  03:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Riyadh_Shikawi
Hello. Could you please take a look at my reply to your !vote on this AfD? I am concerned by your rationale and another thought also struck me while I replied to you. I think you'd probobly be able to answer my question pretty well. Thanks and happy editting.--v/r - TP 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Chase Masterson
Hello HW. I've just blocked an IP who recently edited this article, per User talk:166.205.130.250. I do not know if this is a sock, but it is quite unlikely to be a sock of Cubert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Saturday Night Live
A proposal has been created for WikiProject Saturday Night Live. Please leave comments, and consider joining as a potential project member.Mainly.generic (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Iris Chacon
Learn Spanish you will get the joke, just because you do not speak the language does not mean it is a sujective interpretation. Also there is not a copyright violation. RichardBond (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

List of political dissidents
I disagree with adding Jesus, John the Baptist or Martin Luther as political dissidents, because they were at best religious dissidents, not political dissidents. Anybody with half a brain today knows that religion and politics are always meant to be separate nowadays, and that adding such examples is the absolute height of impertinence. Plus, there is also room for disagreement about whether Jesus was a dissident, since he clearly thought that the real dissidents were the pharisaic Jews, having ordrered them to render unto Caesar. ADM (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversions
I noticed that 3/4 of your edits have to do with some type of reverting. Is this a second-hand account of another user that is meant only for reverting ? If it is, I think the account in question should probably be blocked. ADM (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would being an RC patroller mean this is a sock? tedder (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think he's an RC patroller, I think he's something else. ADM (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lloyd
You cite as your reason for censoring my post on Mark Lloyd's page that it is "subjective commentary, intended as derogatory." All I did was quote the guy, how is that subjective? And it's what he said, so if there was any intention to be derogatory it was his his, not mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countervaling (talk • contribs) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we can begin with your statement that "Lloyd had some very troubling things to say about the First Amendment," which is obviously subjective and less than complimentary. And selective quotation is a well-known mode of character assassination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris Daly
I have two issues:

1. How is a cited reference to a major newspaper considered vandalism?

2. Why would the examiner (sfgate) be blacklisted? I don't understand this....

KermitClown (talk) 01:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't mean to be sticking my beak in, but I second Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that you, KermitClown, are a vandal. I've reviewed your contributions and you seem to be adding nothing helpful nor useful to any of these articles.  I'm just saying, I have no problem supporting a ban on you.  Geeky Randy (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the issue at hand here. Why is a newspaper blacklisted from this particular article? I cna't find anywhere that it was. KermitClown (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I might as well apply to become an administrator/moderator, as you sir, have zero credibilty in my opinion. Seems you simply blanket categorize things as vandalism if someone does not share your POV. This is true of your characterizations of the Daly article. Seems like you go around and revert edits, like a bull in a china shop and never have any original edits to contribute. KermitClown (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sylvia El Nakkady
While I agree with your assessment that notability is asserted, I later found that the entire section that I had marked off-topic was a copyvio and I promptly removed it. What's left is a sub-stub that does not assert anything, and I am unable to find references about Ms. El Nakkady (though the magazine itself gets a lot of ghits), in fact I am not even able to locate any primary sources. Do you think this should go to AfD? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done here. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just posted to the AFD, coincidentally. I wish I'd suggested PRODding it originally -- better yet, PRODded it myself; with the copyvio gone there's not enough to support a decent stub. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your revert
Despite your revert, please note, , , , and. Not only are you somehow not "a neutral editor doing the restore", the title just keeps appearing in edit summaries, as an anchor, etc. This is what I mean, i.e. anyone who critiques him is somehow not neutral and anyone who warns him will have his/her warnings ignored. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Claudia Costa
My apologies for removing the AFD tag from Claudia Costa I checked both the original AFD and the deletion review but did not notice the 2nd AFD. Thanks for adding the tag back in. RP459 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Nadine Janssen
Would you happen to know why did I get a bot message saying that the Nadine Janssen article that apparently I created is scheduled for deletion? I mean I have never started that article. Why would I be getting the message then? Norum 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (stalker, replying) Looks like you worked on it very early on. tedder (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I worked on it back then, but I never started the article. Norum 19:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the message says "An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on". Emphasis on "or worked on". tedder (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

How could it be deleted if the MAJORITY said to keep the article? 6 were to keep it, 5 to delete it. So technically that should have been kept. So much for the fairness on Wikipedia. Pathetic. Norum 14:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the keep !votes were correctly discounted as not based in policy. In addition, most of the keep !votes seem to come from an IP stalker of mine who's just come off a block for sockpuppetry and deserves another one. You could take this to DRV, but you'd get your head handed to you rather quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I got Puma Swede reinstated in January 2009, I will get Nadine Jansen reinstated too. Norum 17:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)