User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 04

snl archives
the snl archives is a reliable site. It is accurate when detailing a show and a season.

http://snl.jt.org/season.php?i=1975

For example that link right there provides all the episodes, all the cast and the number of times live from... was said. It provides proof with pictures from the episode. The source is credible, by using the archives information we can calculate the number of times live from... was said and give it off to help wikipedias page. It very important, it shows how the cast member has importance in the show. Just like how the best of section the update section, it shows the importance of the cast member in their era. It would greatly help fans just as how the other sections on the page are. I dont understand why the archvies arent a good enough source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water78 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever you may think of it, it's a self-published site failing WP:RS, and may not be used to source claims regarding living persons. Rather than arguing with individual editors about settled policy issues, you should familiarize yourself with the relevant policies and be sure your edits comply with them. The many uncontroverted warnings on your talk page should demonstrate this beyond doubt. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You removed the photo attached to the article "Loek van Mil". I shot this photo myself, so there's no copyright infringement. The picture only needs to be reduced to a proper size, I did not know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OutfieldAssist (talk • contribs) 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

which is the best?
As a courtesy often overlooked by nominators, which is the most neutral way to post a note about Articles for deletion/Peter Hudecki (2nd nomination) on the talk pages of the article's editors and particpants of the previous AFD?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Advanced URL: User_talk:MichaelQSchmidt Ikip 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Shimuzu
It is a double created article discussed at the BLPN and I am moving the contents and creating a redirect. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that might be, the situation has sat at the BLPN for some time and I was just doing what I thought was correct, I have not trashed anything, I have moved all the content to the talkpage of the other article and added the cats and externals there, yes some trimming needs to be done and it does appear a bit fan site I tagged it myself, I have never done a redirect myself and have asked a question as regards doing it at the wiki help desk, feel free if I have made some wheels drop off I will revert all my edits as regards this. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Suzanne Carlsson
Hi,

Before these deletions, did you consider taking the time to have a look for better sources? I wasn't aware that The Sun was considered an inherently unreliable source either: can you point me to that discussion? While the sourcing could be better, I generally opt for Web-accessible references for new articles because they're easier to verify than offline publications (especially newspapers and magazines). I don't think there's reason to believe that the content in question is actually false, and it forms the basis of the article's notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The unreliable source was "chickipedia," an anyone-can-edit site. The Sun-referenced content was removed because the text in the article didn't match what was actually written in the source; and what was written in the source, as characterized there, wasn't verifiable and/or encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are primary sources for her height (the thing referenced to Chickipedia) if you're just looking for verification. As for the stuff verified to the Sun, again I'd like to see where the discussion was which concluded that it automatically wasn't a reliable source. I've seen at least two separate scans of tabloid articles which contain the information in question. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One more time: the article content referenced to the Sun article didn't match up with what the Sun article actually said, and what little that was verifiable wasn't encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just so I'm clear here: you're suggesting that an article which says the following: "MODEL Suzanne claims to have the longest legs in Scotland - at a whopping 44 INCHES. ... She even insured them once for a staggering £1million." does "not match up" with the material added, which said: "Carlsson ... is on record as having the longest legs of any Scottish person, with an inside leg measurement of 36.5 in and an outside measurement of 46.5 in. Her legs are insured for 1 million pounds sterling." Even given the discrepancy of the actual measurement, the actual content of both sections syncs up pretty neatly. Before I take this to a third opinion, care to reconsider the deletion? I'm happy for it to be tagged for better sources, but this was really a baby-with-the-bathwater moment IMO. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got it. "Suzanne claims to have" is not the same as "is on record as having"; and "insured them once" is no the same as "are insured." BTW, the latter claim is a well-known type of publicity stunt, and the "insurance policy" is typically low-cost, short-duration, very limited protection --a non-significant event.


 * Thanks. I'd have appreciated that fuller explanation when I first asked. I'll see whether I can find any better references for the leg length claim. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer)
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), you may be interested in the rename discussion at Talk:Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Zooey Deschanel Discography
Hi Hullaballoo: I first added "In the Sun" without reference, which was removed by Andrewlp1991 stating appropriately "...If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes..." I then added back including appropriate references, but you removed it again citing andrewlp. What's that about? {Sec906 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}
 * The references aren't appropriate, especially for a BLP. The first reference is to a blog, which is treated as self-published and generally fails WP:RS. The second source, last.fm, relies on user-supplied content and material copied from Wikipedia (note in particular the "edit" function on the page you referenced). The third ref goes to a retail site, also generally inappropriate (especially for unreleased material, where Amazon is willing to solicit orders before a release/date is solidly set). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I shall try to be more careful. Then as for Munchausen By Proxy being a fictional band, I think an appropriate source might be http://stereogum.com/archives/zooey_deschanel_does_synth_pop_for_the_new_jim_car_040631.html Would you agree? In part, my issue is that the current Wikipedia entry seems to present this as an actual band rather than make it clear this band is fictional. {Sec906 (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}

Reference "...and first single 'In the Sun'..." http://www.mergerecords.com/blog/2009/12/she-him-reveal-volume-two-details/ is the news blog for Merge Records. Although a blog, it is not user editable and is from their own record label's site. Does that not qualify as reliable? Sorry for the hassle, and thanks for your help on this. {Sec906 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)}


 * Those refs look good enough to me; a corporate blog (as opposed to a personal blog) is generally an acceptable source for claims related to the corporation's business, so long as the claims aren't inappropriately self-serving. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! {Sec906 (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}

Here is my concern
I normally find you to be pretty balanced on AfD's, but in the case of the Cash Prince, I feel you're on a slippery slope. GNG is being used to shoehorn in non-notable people. For example, if my local paper (which passes WP:RS does a profile on the local karate instructor that opened a new school, he passes GNG as you are applying it. It is significant coverage (he is the subject) and the source is reliable and third party. Is that really what you believe the intent of GNG is? Is that where you want Wikipedia to go? My other question is about the criterias for different classes. Have you seen many examples, of a politician that doesn't pass GNG but does pass WP:POLITICIAN? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * DGG recently added a comment to the AFD that I think accurately presents the position I hold. I'd add that a working consensus has been developed at AFDs that an obituary article (not just a local story, death notice or short wire story) in a national newspaper of record like the NYTimes is sufficient evidence of notability, and that similar reasoning covers profiles of living persons in such media. The significance of coverage increases with the importance of the source, and sometime a single source is enough if the publisher is important enough. (There's a very strong, related argument that the likelihood of a subject being covered only in a national newspaper of record, without prior or subsequent coverage elsewhere, is vanishingly low, so that requiring a search for other coverage would call for wasted effort. It's the same principle that justifies most of the specialized notability guidelines.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So how do I get AfterElton counted as "reliable".
It's a very professional & important Blog for LGBT-in-the-media issues, and that was a article that covered events on the show, not speculation. For now I'll replace the source with one from the Howard Stern show website itself that the article linked to, but how do I get AfterElton counted as "reliable" so I can use it for future referencing? occono (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Miss Pooja
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Miss Pooja. 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 Notability and "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/Miss Pooja (2nd nomination). 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) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiana Tom
Since you want to be snarky with your edit summaries, I won't worry about tip-toeing around. You're being pedantic about the Playboy appearence. She was completely nude, everyone knows it and it was one of their best selling issues. You keep citing BLP.....exactly which part of BLP is the problem? The issue isn't libelous or contentious. She isn't ashamed of it and readily admits it. There is plenty of proof, but the images are copyrighted. What exactly do you think the phrase "posed for Playboy" is supposed to mean? In family friendly RS's, like newspapers, they tend to avoid being overly descriptive of things like what nude photos showed. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The NY Post article DOES specify nude. I am restoring it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just realized the Post articles title is "FLEX' AND SEX; ESPN AND MTV STARS STRIP FOR PLAYBOY". What do you think "strip" means? Even if you don't have access to the full article (which isn't my problem), the title alone should make you think maybe you're being a little too picky about this issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Richards
Is there some reason you reverted without comment? Have you read the Talk:Michael_Richards established on the article's talk page? HesAKramer (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see.
 * It's not supported by the source cited as a reference for it.
 * It's an unsupported claim regarding a living person, and therefore a BLP violation.
 * A three-year-old "consensus" to disregard sourcing and BLP requirements is utterly worthless.
 * Despite that weird little "consensus" claim on the talk page, the content was removed from the article more than two years ago, withou any apparent challenge until you added it back yesterday.
 * You're fairly obviously a sockpuppet / SPA and your intentions are vandalous.
 * The edit was accurately flagged as problematic by a valid edit filter, putting the burden on editors who wish to keep it.

That should be good enough for now. Y'all don't come back now, y'hear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to dislike having been shown that you were in error. Had you taken five minutes to actually the article's talk page instead of blindly reverting false positives from the edit filter, you'd have seen the Washington Post source used in the section:
 * "The man continued to yell back at Richards, saying several times, "That was uncalled for!" He called Richards a series of names, including "cracker" and "[expletive] white boy" and disparaged his post-"Seinfeld" career."
 * Why not admit that you screwed up and move on? There's a long-standing consensus on that article's talk page to include this part of their exchange, and you have no reason to keep deleting it now except for petty vindictiveness. HesAKramer (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Marketa Belonoha
Hi Wolf, I just reviewed you recent edits to the Marketa Belonoha article. You removed 70% of the text in the article plus a long and carefully compiled list of her work. Most of the text was sourced. You seem to be selective in your deletions as you removed all mention of nudity and left other text even though what you deleted and what you removed were from the same source. This is not proper or neutral editing. Judging from the threads above, it would seem that this kind of selective editing may be a pattern with you. I hope you are able to alter this pattern soon. -- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

John Kricfalusi
Someone's been adding a "Criticisms" (sic) section, which doesn't follow the BLP guidelines. Could your bot watch the page and revert these edits? IsaacAA (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful
I'm sure this was just an oversight but in the same edit you removed the few sources that were listed as references while adding a tag asserting that the article had no references. You also dated that tag September 2007 rather than any current date. -- Banj e b oi   08:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Brasileirinhas
I'm really bored of your ill edits. You even delete parts that have proper references on the relevant articles. Now, this is what genuine vandalism is. Understand? Behemoth (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dilini mi yuttun amına goduumun, dinini ekmeeni siktiimin pici? Behemoth (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Talvin DeMachio
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Talvin DeMachio. 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 Notability and "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/Talvin DeMachio. 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) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be calling me a fraud
I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime. Ash (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You are misrepresenting the situation. You are presenting a link to a retailer page which acknowledges that it is a Wikipedia mirror, with word-for-word identical text, with a description claiming it is an independent source. You changed the description after I pointed out it was a mirror page. I don't see any good faith in your behavior. Don't post here again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sharington
Thank you for the feedback. I will make citations corrections change tone to be less promotional. I know Grace personally and she used to go by Amy Gilbertson. She was in Miss America and runner up to Miss Iowa. I will site her accomplishments and also correct any inadvertent deceptions on my part. I am NOT a promoter, my name is Jeffrey Fry and am a personal friend of Ms. Sharington and thought her life noteworthy. Of course, I bow to your guidelines as you see fit to implement and thank you for your understanding and consideration. You can find me on LinkedIn and Facebook. I live in Austin, TX (jxf@austin.rr.com) is my email address and I invest and help start ups. Jeteye (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed info about 3rd person that is not verifiable, incorrect name. Added link to pageant winner. Jeteye (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jocelyn Wildenstein
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jocelyn Wildenstein. 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 Notability and "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/Jocelyn Wildenstein. 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) 01:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tapuah junction stabbing DrV
Hi HW: I think you have a typo (loser instead of closer) in the DrV which could, in theory, be taken poorly. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AAARRRGGGHHHH. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:B-Wuuu
Hello. Would you object to your AN/I report being moved to AN, which is better suited to that kind of discussion? Because there's no specific "incident" to deal with, stuff like that sometimes gets overlooked on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's where it belongs, it should be moved there. I don't know the mechanics of doing it ,though. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me give it a try. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've made the move. AN is generally a better place for behavioral or status questions to be handled that aren't centered on a specific disruptive incident, so I believe that the move is entirely justified.  We'll see if an admin objects to it.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The AN report has now scrolled off the board without any action being taken, so I have filed a sockpuppet report here, if you'de like to comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And he's filed an AN/I complaint against me here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Millepied
Thank you for cleaning up Benjamin Millepied; Wikipedia does not need to resemble Us. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comment at AN/I
You commented on a closed discussion, FYI. I reverted your edits/comments. Please take it to RFC/U if the discussion is opened up there. This is to keep everything closed, and everyone calm and to let the discussion either die or go to the appropriate place.  D u s t i SPEAK!! 19:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to the authority of a non-admin to close an ANI discussion in the absence of an expressed consensus that it be closed. It strikes me that I would have just as much right to reopen it as you had to close it. I don't see where you have any right to expunge my comments, regardless of your opinion of their propriety. Perhaps you could identify a relevant policy, guideline, precedent or practice.


 * I'd also note that when I posted my comments, I did not receive the standard conflict notice, which I should havr received if my edit was subsequent to your closing edit (however valid that was). That suggests to that there's some sort of glitch involved, and you ought to respect in good faith my posting.


 * I'd also point out that my comments go well beyond the scope of the purported RFC/U, which I think has been framed as an attempt to intimidate editors with whom Ash has been in conflict. As someone who's been the target of Ash's innuendo in the recent past, I also think I should be seen as having a right to comment on discussions where Ive been involved by implication. You should restore my comments, and I also believe you should remove your unilateral closure without consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 20:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 D u s t i SPEAK!! 20:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I restored your edit
While it's clear that very little "action" will be taken on this matter, Dusti doesn't get to decide who can or can not have their say. The typical way things are handled at AN/I is that conversation is allowed to go on until it peters out on its own, unless that conversation is total nightmare. While your mileage may vary on "total nightmare", that conversation doesn't even rise to the level of "minor dustup." Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Swift
Yes, I guess you're right. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

And you thought nobody noticed...
...Well, it may have something to do with the incredibly long watchlist I insist on maintaining, but I did:

Keep up the good work! Best, HJ Mitchell  |  Penny for your thoughts?   21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Following up on concerns about User:Ash's use of citations
Please see this draft RFC/U. I'm not sure why this couldn't have been dealt with at ANI, but since it wasn't I'm following up with an RFC/U as suggested. I have told Ash of my intention to file this, for what it's worth. Let me know if you have any comments or additions (feel free to just make changes). I'll submit it in the next day or so, depending on the feedback I receive. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ke$sha and SNL
You removed Ke$sha's scheduled performance on SNL citing WP:BLP concerns. Can you please participate in the discussion here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

3rr reply
Thanks for the heads up! Fixer23 (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sharington
On the talk, I proposed stubifying the article and I just wanted to alert you to it to see what you think. Thanks!  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 01:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Donzaleigh Abernathy
Hi there.

Re. recent additions to Donzaleigh Abernathy which you removed; I spoke to a user in the help channel (at length), and what happened is this;

added something somewhat promotional and unreferenced, several times. They did not understand Wikipedia policies on WP:BRD etc. They were warned.

Their friend,, then tried to add exactly the same thing - and was blocked as a sock.

Madamewus came into the IRC help channel, and I explained all about policies etc; they requested an unblock (see their talk page), and they now intend to explain what they would like to add on talk:Donzaleigh Abernathy, and they will provide references.

Therefore, please could you look out for their discussion there, and comment on it. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grace Sharington
An article that you have been involved in editing, Grace Sharington, 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. -- WikHead (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

India Allen
Why was Category:American female adult models inappropriate for India Allen? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because she's not an "adult model." That's a term with no well-defined meaning, and derogatory connotations.  Per WP:CAT, categories must "be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects," a test that this amorphous characterization, with no defining criteria, clearly fails.  Categories are also appropriately defined in terms of occupation, and the fact that a model has done some "glamour" work does not establish an occupation. WP:BLP requires that "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," a standard that the "adult model" category fails in this and similar cases. Finally, BLP also requires that "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation," a standard which both the title of this category and the association of mainstream models with hardcore pornographic performers violates. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely cut-n-dry definitions for categories are a rare luxury among the categories. This category, Category:American female adult models, is defined well-enough: an adult model is any model that features sexually in material that can only be sold to adults. Regardless of your interpretations of WP:CAT, the category currently exists at Wikipedia and is extensively used. I do not accept your rejection of this category as being too amorphous to use. Lastly, it is a fact that some categories have a stigma and some people do logically belong to them. This does not mean those categories should not be used. Are we to remove Category:Murderers because of its stigma? WP:BLP urges caution because you should use the categories wisely, but you are still to call a spade, a spade. That said, it's not clear to me that this category has a strong stigma, especially these days. If you harbor derogatory connotations over "adult modeling", that is your or some segment of society's prejudice. I see no obvious malice involved with including her in this category and in any case, she included herself. As far as I'm concerned: India Allen appeared in Playbody. India Allen is an adult model. This is not even a close decision. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously disagree; the discussion on the recent category deletion proposal is contrary to your position, and the applicable policies/guidelines don't line up with your position. The fact that general policies and guidelines may not be followed in a particular case simply shows the need for cleanup, not an exemption from general rules -- especially when BLP is involved. Finally, I'd note that the category definition you provide here is completely different from  the description you unilaterally added to the category page -- a clear signal, I'd say, that the definition is hardly as well-established as you insist. (And what would be your source for the assertion that Playboy is legally available only to adults?) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you wikilink to the discussion so I can join in? Haven't found it via Google. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you talking about this? Jason Quinn (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it, although it's closed now. If the subject is to be reopened, BLPN would be the appopriate place to resume. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hullaballoo: can you list some of the article pages that you think do belong in this category? Tim Pierce (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I've been checking the articles alphabetically, the remaining A's give a reasonable set of examples. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

DanniGirl TFDs
Hi, Hullabaloo. I consolidated the separate TFD nominations you created for the DanniGirl navboxes. Since the function and deletion rationale for each one is identical, it seems likely that they will either all be kept or all be deleted. If you think combining them will be a problem for some reason, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
I warned you for reverting, meant to hit the ip!! --Aka042 (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jazmin
what unreferenced laundry list? don't get so carried away. all of these films are published material and are verifiable sources. you inability to check them out doesn't make it unreferenced. Aditya (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Category: American_female_adult_models
Although you nominated this category for deletion, the decision was Keep the category (on April 8).

I notice that since then you've removed almost 40 articles from this category. Please could you explain this action? Thanks. MissBeastly 23:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Miss SPA/Sockpuppet, since you've noticed the discussion, you should also be aware that no one disputed the need for substantial cleanup, or that, as another editor put it, this category stands in relation to the general model category the same way the pornographic film actors category stands to the general film actors category, and no one denied the BLP problems or the failure to conform to the general categorization policies. Now don't post here again without using your standard Wikipedia account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, MissBeastly has asked me to post here so that you can receive some wider opinions on the dispute. It appears to me that most the articles that you have removed from the category in question were placed in the category appropriately. If you believe otherwise then the best thing to do is start a discussion on the article talkpages concerning the matter, if consensus is that the article/s should be removed from the category then it can be, otherwise it should stay. You should also note that your current actions seem to be going against the consensus established here. You must establish a new consensus before trying to change the category in the way that you are currently doing so. Finally, referring to MissBeastly as a sockpuppet with out providing any evidence goes against the principal of WP:AGF, please try and stick to discussing the matter at hand. If you have evidence against them you're welcome to open an SPI case, otherwise please do not continue to accuse them of sockpuppetry. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Like I said, you're welcome to open an SPI case on it so long as you can present ample evidence. I'm not really interested in getting too involved in this matter, just wanted to offer you a third opinion. Putting the issue of any possible sockpuppetry aside, I still think that you need to reconsider your actions in regard to Category:American female adult models. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After some lenghty discussion and investigation on IRC and wiki, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of . Please note that this does not excuse your removal of articles from the category. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Bhutto
Hi Hullaballoo.. I'm not seeing how this source is a Wikipedia mirror site. . Any information would be welcome. Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
 * The very last line at the bottom of that page, in tiny print, identifies the text as the "reference article from the English Wikipedia." Not all content at allexperts.com comes from Wikipedia, but everything in the "allexperts.com/e/" portion of the site mirrors Wikipedia, though often the copies can be out of date. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I missed that, and I checked the Sindhi article and it seems nothing like the allexperts.com. Well, it wasn't a great source. (Grapes were probably sour anyway.)Thanks.(olive (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Atomic Tom (Band)
Hi,

You removed the speedy tag on this with the edit sum "remove speedy, includes credible claim of significance" - but am at a genuine loss to find that in the article - can you elaborate for me. (BTW have taken it to AfD.) Codf1977 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Assertion that the band is signed to a notable label. Not enough on its own to demonstrate notability, but enough, in my opinion, to require a non-speedy deletion process. There could be enough out there in the music press to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cytherea
In re this edit, are you sure it is not her official website? --Golbez (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be putting it back unless you respond. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an obvious spamlink. Anyone can claim to operate such an "official site." All the link goes to is a teaser for a paysite, with no encyclopedia-relevant content. Per WP:EL, "external links to websites that require... a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers"; official links are provided "give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself" - a standard that this link clearly fails (even if there were evidence it meets the other requirements of WP:ELOFFICIAL, which there isn't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

use of BLP unsourced vs. BLP refimprove
Hi, i noticed your edit which added "BLP unsourced" tag to an article that had two references (in the form of external links). Please don't apply the BLP unsourced tag in such cases. You may wish to apply BLP refimprove instead. But, i and others are working to address completely unsourced BLP articles under a deadline. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also there is some tag which calls for adding in-line citations, which might be appropriate instead. I reverted your edit in this case.  Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PPS. I removed your tags in about a dozen more articles, replacing in some cases with BLP refimprove.  Please discuss.  Your work tagging does basically seem helpful, but IMO more precise tagging is needed.  You might want to possibly participate in one or another of the wikiprojects on BLPs, by the way. --doncram (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I think you're completely off base here. The template involved is quite specific, and states that no references or sources are cited.  As WP:EL states. items identified as external links are not those cited as "sources supporting article content." Your approach does not enjoy consensus support; aside from the specific language of the template, I spotchecked the first two dozen or so of the many templated pages listed here : for the valid listings, more than 90% would fail your standard, since they include external links sections, but no actual citations. I've used the same standards in tagging and reviewing hundreds/thousands of BLP for more than a yeat, and saw absolutely no objections to this approach until yours today, presumably because I assessed the in=practice consensus before tagging. I'm sure my tagging isn't perfect, but I think my error rate has been pretty low.
 * I'd also note that several of your "corrections" to my tagging are dead wrong: here, here, here, and here, you removed the refimprove tag from BLPs with substantial unsourced/unreferenced content. That's a pretty high error rate in a batch of no more than a dozen "corrections." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, hi again, i didn't see your response on my watchlist, and i just happened back to check. I am glad you responded and you do sound very reasonable.  I am hopeful then that we can work out some understanding quickly so we are not editing at cross-purposes.


 * You could have operated the way you have for a year and not gotten feedback, but during most of that period the BLP unsourced issue and tagging was not focused and defined, so I would not expect you would have gotten useful feedback on exactly this. It is true that i have come into the BLP unsourced issue relatively recently, and I concede that you probably know more about many aspects of tagging articles than i do.  But it happens that i am working on the BLP unsourced issue and am focused on exactly that, am involved in discussions with others too at BLP-related pages, and I am not completely uninformed.  Specifically, I have had discussions with others about IMDB as a source, and I fully understand it is not a great source for many things, but it is a source and is believed by many to be reliable for some purposes.  The articles here all or almost all had an IMDB profile link, as an External link.  As an external link, it is there as a source in the article and the article does not qualify for "BLP unsourced".


 * So, I believe my corrections are not "dead wrong". Perhaps/probably it would have been better to add "BLP refimprove" and some tag calling for inline citations, instead.  Do you know the proper tag for calling for inline citations?  If we could sort that out, and you would agree that BLP refimproved plus that would substitute properly in these cases, then I would agree to apply that instead and we would be able to conclude this quickly.  If you really think i am dead wrong to assert that external links are sources and that BLP unsourced does not apply, then we should certainly raise this elsewhere and get others views to resolve this. --doncram (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. Oh, okay now i see you found your way to wt:URBLP, specifically Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons and commented there. Good.  I'll watch here, but maybe we should plan to discuss out there. --doncram (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey again. I thot we had discussion towards some consensus, but i am browsing the April 2010 BLP unreferenced category and come across a new one added by you just now, in this edit. I changed it from "BLP unsourced" to "BLP refimprove" and "nofootnotes". Could you use those two tags instead, and possibly also anything else you want to use to indicate skepticism about IMDB if you wish. But, the article has sources. The sources given as external links are the sources used in creating the article, i believe. So it is not BLP unsourced. The sources are given. Discuss here or at the wt:URBLP page, pls., if you don't agree. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out, here and elsewhere, your interpretation doesn't reflect practice or consensus, and is contradicted by the express language of the tag involved. The tag has been in use for years, and there's no indication whatever that your ersatz interpretation of "cite(d)" to mean "uncited, but maybe somehow usable as a source for something somewhere in the article" holds even a drop of water. The number of users that you're disputing this point with should be a very clear signal to you that your interpretation doesn't enjoy consensus; it's way too late in the game to redefine a tag used tens of thousands of times over years of editing -- and certainly not to do so unilaterally. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, i just came across another newly-tagged-by-you article that had general references, in this version just tagged by you. I changed it from BLPunreferenced to BLPrefimprove, like the others.  Hey, what's up?  I did not previously see your reply above and don't get why you would be dismissing my point.  I have in fact had conversations with others, ongoing again, about IMDB source reliability, etc., at wt:URBLP.  But there is no rejection there by others of the basic point that IMDB or other marginal sources are in fact sources.  No one but you here, i think, is rejecting that.  Please apply BLPrefimprove plus any other reliability-questioning tags you wish, instead of inflating the issue of completely unsourced BLPs.  I am not redefining anything unilaterally, AFAIK.  Please participate in discussions at wt:URBLP, too. --doncram (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, i return to thank you for your straight talking. You may have noticed my using new BLP IMDB refimprove and BLP IMDB-only refimprove in edits converting many "BLP unreferenced" tagged items.  I converted many from April 2010 but also many from almost 3 years ago, and it does seem fairly apparent that usage has long been as you say, at least for some editors.  I.e. that "BLP unreferenced" has been used to describe cases where there is IMDB and/or other references.  The reason i am focused on it differently than you and others previous, now, is that i am focused on helping to meet the Wikipedia goal of having fewer than 30,000 unreferenced BLPs by June 1.  I estimate that 4,000 or more articles in the original problem of 50,000 apparent back in January, were in fact IMDB-based articles where the labelling was incorrect.  About 3,000 remain which i intend to relabel.  I trust that by using these more specific tags helps rather than hurts in your and others' general effort to improve the referencing of these articles, and also is more logical / less confusing to many other editors who come across them.  I did/do have some support from some other editors in this, at wt:URBLP, and have seen no other objections to my edits, so I am thinking this meets general approval.  Thanks again for your comments.  You seem to be doing very good work, by the way, from what i see of your edits in passing.  Sincerely, --doncram (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nudity in music videos
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nudity in music videos. 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 Notability and "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/Nudity in music videos. 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) 01:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation in Eastern Michigan Eagles football
You recently removed a citation from this article stating that the linked page is a Wikipedia mirror site. I had thought it might be, but had dismissed that idea since we don't have such an article. But apparently it was speedy deleted as "blatant copyright infringement". Searching on the entire first sentence of the article yields 22 Google results, most of which are probably Wikipedia mirrors, but one of which, presumably, is the original source (because if our article was blatant copyright infringement, there had to be a source, and in my experience, 99 times out of 100, if an article is caught as blatant copyright infringement the source is online and some user just copied and pasted it). Do you have any idea which of those search results is not a Wikipedia mirror site? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I think I found it. cmadler (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Adult models categories
Hi, may I ask why you are removing "adult models" categories, stating that they are "inappropriate", from bios of Playmates and Page 3 girls? This edit summary says "category not supported by article text" despite multiple mentions of topless modelling.

I'd also like to encourage you to WP:archive old sections of this talk page, as it takes a long time to load. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Because they're not "adult models." That's a term with no well-defined meaning, and derogatory connotations.  Per WP:CAT, categories must "be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects," a test that this amorphous characterization, with no defining criteria, clearly fails.  Categories are also appropriately defined in terms of occupation, and the fact that a model has done some "glamour" work does not establish an occupation. WP:BLP requires that "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," a standard that the "adult model" category fails in this and similar cases. Finally, BLP also requires that "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation," a standard which both the title of this category and the association of mainstream models with hardcore pornographic performers violates. We don't categorize Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Holly Hunter, Sally Field, or Glenda Jackson as "adult movie actresses," or even Kim Cattrall, Maria Schneider, and countless B-movie performers who've done topless (or more revealing) scenes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I referred to adult model which redirects to a page including glamour photography, but it's a disambig page so evidently you are right that the term is ambiguous. It would help to add a working definition on the category pages; please check my work later. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm done -- is the expanded guidance in Template:Adult model, displayed on all relevant category pages, helpful? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, clearer and more effective than I would have managed on my own. Thank you very much! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good, too! Could you both possibly consider the somewhat related issue at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons.  It's about wikiproject tags on Talk pages, similar but different of course to category tags on articles themselves.  I may possibly cite your good wording in that discussion. --doncram (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Audrey Kitching
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Audrey Kitching. 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 Notability and "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/Audrey Kitching. 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) 01:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AWMDB is not a spamlink
It's not a spamlink since it holds scene-by-scene information on the biggest market of the adult industry - online media - in the same way IAFD etc hold similar information for offline media (DVD). if you wish to discuss why you are against it there a discussion, including why it holds relevent information, that has been started on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography. Add to the discussion there including any possible additional or better sources you can find with the same information. NathyWashington (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Complete and utter rubbish. It's just a collection of links to low-rent porn sites selling downloads. Links to retailer pages aren't allowed, and this is just an attempt to evade that antispamming rule. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless you can find me another source that has detailed information on over 35,000 online scenes such as whether they include things such as anal,interracial,lesbian etc and who stars in the scenes then it is a source of information not covered anywhere else. I'm happy to hear about a better source to replace it but don't be so naive that these sites don't have these links. Two of the biggest databases IAFD and EBI have affiliate links to both websites and DVD sales because this is how they generate their income. Don't be so naive to assume a site with links to porn is spam and I'm pretty sure the biggest companies in online porn wouldn't be considered "low-rent porn sites" they make billions of dollars a year. If we were to remove sources based on links to places that sell stuff IAFD, EBI and all other sources would be removed and tagged as spam. If I go to Priya Rai's IAFD profile there are dozens of those kinds of links (http://www.iafd.com/gallerypage.rme/perfid=priyarai/gender=f/priya-rai-gallery.htm) NathyWashington (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Blathering doesn't make this any less spammy, or provide a shred of a case that it meets WP:RS in any other respect. And that iafd page you scrounged up wouldn't qualify as a reference, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I used that IAFD link to refute your silly statement that because it has links to paysites that it's spam. This isn't Hullaballoopedia, neither of our opinions are fact. I won't back down on what I believe is a source of information not covered elsewhere because you are on your high horse. If you have an alternative/better source for this information, for instance if you can find me another source where I can find out the exact sites and scenes that Eva Angelina does anal or Gianna Michaels does interracial then great but until you do I will continue to undo your revisions until a wider opinion has been made in the discussion. NathyWashington (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you'll be blocked for edit warring and general incivility. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for pornography-obsessed people with too much time on their hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Lynnda Kimball

 * Hey there, re your edit comment "generic external links are not cited sources," what do you mean? I saw there is a link to a detailed profile on playboy.com for this person.  Its not just a link to playboy.com.  The template you added says "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources," which doesn't seem accurate.  Cheers--Milowent (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * An external link is not an identified source; such a listing does not specify which article content (if any) was taken from the linked page. WP:EL states that such links "are not citations to sources supporting article content." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So take a gander at it again, that's all that was needed?--Milowent (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

PROD on List of Playboy Playmates of 1975
Okay, let me get this straight. Individual Playmate articles are being deleted as they are not notable, so as a precautionary measure, we create "List of" articles. Now you're saying we can't create them?!? Tabercil (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hank Skinner
Good evening Hullabaloo, The article about Hank Skinner is being invaded by a couple of spammers, and already the rule of the 3 reversals should go against them, they have reinserted a link of hate imitating skinner defense site. I am introducing a request of mediation. Adumoul (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Will you be responding?
Please tell me (at least a yes or no) if you will be responding meaningfully on the Talk page to Issues 1-10+ at Talk:Lisa Lavie. RCraig09 (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Daisy Marie
I added that Daisy's natural breast size was 32B. The source is from her own hand-written bio sheet that you can see at the bottom of the cited url. I also thought the video interview on that page would be useful as an external link to show her personality by how she answered a few questions. That link was removed when I first added it. I wasn't logged in at the time. I respectfully request that this not be considered spam. I think it is a good resource to learn more about the person. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinG123 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"unsourced gossip", via your deletion to my contribution
Hello I am just wondering as to why you deleted my contribution as "unsourced gossip". I'ts not "unsourced", infact I can supply many magazine articles, pictures and websites to confirm this. I would appreciate it if you would respond to my question and supply me a way to have these reposted so they corallate with other multimedia publications. I recently donated to wikipedia in quite a large sum and are in no way deliberatly vandalizing pages or the integrity of this site, as a moderator im hoping you can understand where I am coming from. I hope to resolve this issue with you soon, if not to contact wikipedia directly and its owners. thank you

scott storch -scst2890 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scst2890 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Image kerfluffle
Just giving you a heads-up that a large number of images have been pulled from Commons that are sexual in nature, and a number of them were later found to have been in use. I'm contacting you as you're one of the more active editors on the adult stuff here. If you could watch for red-links and give me a heads up on any that you see so I can see about restoring it, I'd appreciate it. Tabercil (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Anya Verkhovskaya
Sometimes we disagree at AFDs... sometimes we agree completely. I've made some decent steps toward improving Anya Verkhovskaya. Care to assist?  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Rochelle Loewen: I have a copyright to this photo, please do not delete it. Maybe you can help me revise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdheinz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

First Saudi State
What was wrong about the way I referenced? But if it makes the article any better I'm with you mate. Dhulfiqar 20:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spine.Cleaver (talk • contribs)

SNL movies
The office space is based off shorts that appeared on the show. So it should count towards the section. Why doesnt it? Water78 (talk)
 * Because the source material wasn't produced by or for SNL, and didn't first appear on SNL. SNL reran it after it had been shown elsewhere. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)
Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Since I didn't know what to think of the rational for your removal of that paragraph in this edit to Nastassja Kinski, I asked for instruction on Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I just though to drop you a note. Debresser (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup. Quickly resolved at BLPN, no reason for redundant comments from me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Breanne Benson
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have removed the tag from Breanne Benson and hereby inform you about this as suggested in the PROD guide. I have added my reasons on the related talk page. Although you are obviously a highly active deletionist, I hope that you are fair enough not to straight push for an AfD especially as I have little experience here so far but followed BB by creating this article of which relevance I am convinced. Naturally I will try to improve it in style and content if possible but that can't be done by just me alone and within a few days. I respectfully hope you get my point and that I am not here for fighting.

Testales (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Trent Franks. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Connecticut Sun
Well, it's not my fault that moron is vandalizing the Sun page over and over again. What do you expect me to do, have him keep messing up the page for eternity?? The things that I do is not the problem, in fact vandalizing is just as bad as sending personal attacks. I'm sorry, alright, but you need to talk to that IP user and if you are an admin, block him for life. If not, find somebody and I'm sure there will be consequences sent to that IP user.

Xavier (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)MR.Texan281

Jennifer Jason Leigh
Thanks for removing that allusion to her previous romances. I should have done it myself rather than just clarified the date, but still being somewhat new, I was gutless. It was a throwaway line in a fairly long article, and it had no flesh to it as to what happened or when.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Clint Catalyst - Question
Hi there. You're much more knowledgeable about this site than I could ever fathom being, so I hope that you please will note that I'm asking a question over an edit you made that I don't understand. In other words, I did not revert the edit you made a moment ago to Clint Catalyst's page because I have no desire in engaging in some silly "edit war"; on the contrary, I am contacting you in hopes that it's a mistake I will not make again on another page.

What confuses me is: when you removed the information I added in to the Andy Warhol section with the explanation "unsourced" and "citebreaking," I wonder if it's possible that I listed the reference incorrectly (?), because the article not only states the information I added; there's an accompanying photograph of Catalyst with the juxtaposition between Mick Jagger and him. I noticed this when editing Cory Kennedy's page (of whom the source also contains a photograph of her with her "paired likeness"), and made sure to re-phrase the information so that I wasn't plagiarizing it.

Again, I hope I've made it clear that I'm simply trying to learn. I intend no disrespect. Thank you!

Shellacious (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suppression of the Palance/Tomei Oscar incident
I moved this content from the Palance article to the 65th Academy Awards article to avoid redundancy and undue weight in the two biographies. Is it your position that the affair deserves no coverage in Wikipedia despite being covered in many reliable sources, or have you other plans for it? Best, 86.45.130.146 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You got it. Discredited rumors aren't encyclopedic, and typically violate WP:BLP. There wasn't any "incident." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an understandable position, but do you not agree that there are many noteworthy discredited rumours? To use an exaggerated example, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though discredited, are a worthy topic for encyclopedic coverage, no? By analogy, I put it to you that the Palance/Tomei rumour is worthy of a brief, well-sourced section somewhere or other.


 * On the BLP issue, "typically" does not imply "necessarily" so I am unsure of what you are getting at with that; the coverage of the issue in the Tomei article, which you (unintentionally?) left be seems to be well-sourced, to the point and consistent with the BLP policy. The question is, if we are going to cover it, and if readers will be going to the Awards article and the Palance article to read about it, why should there not be links? Best, 86.45.130.146 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Jessica Biel
Just wanted to remind you that you were at 3RR there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I took the issue to AN/I, even though I didn't see any plausible justification for the disputed image use. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy Model or Adult Model
Hi You reverted my changes on Jenny McCarthy without engaging that article's talk section relevant to the edits. I created the talk section well in advance about the edits in order to discuss them. Your revision says "rv BLP violaton/issues", but on the BLP page the three core goals are


 * Neutral point of view (NPOV)
 * Verifiability (V)
 * No original research (NOR)

Generally, descriptions of Ms. McCarthy as an adult model are more neutral than calling her a model, for the reasons discussed on her article's talk page in the section I created. That characterization is also verifiable. Can you please explain how my edits violate these goals or any of the specific guidelines on BLP? Otherwise I will re-edit the article. I encourage you to respond on the Jenny McCarthy talk page where I have a section for this. Thank you. DGGenuine (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * She's not an "adult model." That's a term with no well-defined meaning, and derogatory connotations.  Per WP:CAT, categories must "be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects," a test that this amorphous characterization, with no defining criteria, clearly fails.  Categories are also appropriately defined in terms of occupation, and the fact that a model has done some "glamour" work does not establish an occupation. WP:BLP requires that "the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources," a standard that the "adult model" category fails in this and similar cases. Finally, BLP also requires that "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation," a standard which both the title of this category and the association of mainstream models with hardcore pornographic performers violates. We don't categorize Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren, Holly Hunter, Sally Field, or Glenda Jackson as "adult movie actresses," or even Kim Cattrall, Maria Schneider, and countless B-movie performers who've done topless (or more revealing) scenes. You should also review WP:BURDEN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Subtrivial"
"Subtrivial" isn't a word. 98.166.109.81 (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The English language has a surfeit of words you could use instead. Try trifling, picayune, insignificant, nugatory, or niggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.246.245 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Confused
I'm not sure why you reverted my addition of the BLP IMDB-only refimprove tag to the Anu Agarwal‎ article. Of course it would be ideal to include independent sources, but at the very least the IMDB link verifies that the individual exists and that she in an Indian actress. The IMDB BLP template I used puts the article into the following categories:All articles lacking sources, Articles lacking reliable references from June 2010, Articles sourced by IMDB, and BLP articles lacking sources. As there is concensus to use these tags to separate the articles that only reference IMDB from those that have no links for verification whatsoever as part of this project, could you advise whether you have an issue with the template in general, or if there is an issue with its use in this particular instance? --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 22:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read this discussion. There's certainly no consensus for a small group of determined users in a Wikiproject to unilaterally redefine a tag that's been in use for years, has been placed on thousands of articles, without any broad discussion and in defiance of the objections of quite a few other uses. The only function this change serves is to help pretend the BLP problem is smaller than it is by inaccurately claiming that an article which doesn't cite any references or sources. but includes external links, actually cites references/sources. That's not a positive contribution to Wikipedia; it's not a whole lot better than just deleting the tag and moving along. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can completely understand your objection to simply retagging articles in order to meet a deadline or goal without actually checking to see if the EL is related or supports any content. I take quite some time to go through the BLPs I come across and try to improve them by adding multiple sources instead of just retagging to lower the outstanding number of BLPs. Sometimes an EL actually can serve for basic verification (such as IMDB for very basic role info or an established sports site for athlete stat verification). I'm not trying to sway your interpretation as to how templates should be used, I was simply curious as to why you were adverse to the IMDB tag as I haven't previously run in to any opposition whatsoever to its use. Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 22:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian Erix
Hi. I saw that you deleted some information off the personal life section of Ian Erix. I appreciate your efforts to keep Wikipedia accurate and factual but in this case the information which you are referring to as gossip has been substantiated in television interviews by both parties and has been reported on by magazines, newspapers and the like numerous times. There have evem been pubic statements released by the artists involved ant there publicists so I am un-doing your revision for these resasons. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please leave this Wikipedia entry as it is. Thank you kindly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftlists123 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, under Wikipedia's policy regarding biographies of living persons, those sources need to be cited in the article. Please also note that Erix's own blog is not an acceptable source to the extent that Erix makes otherwise uncited claims involving other living persons. The article cannot be left "as it is," as WP:BLP calls for the content at issue to be promptly removed until it is adequately sourced and includes appropriate citations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Lee Camp
Don't get into an editing war with me son. You won't win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.232.230 (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Noth
Hello. I feel you're going way over the line in using a talk page and edit summary to accuse another editor (not me) of vandalism when everyone is doing their best to improve a collective work. Could you do me a favour and check over WP:AGF again?--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're simply wrong. If you had bothered to check out the history of this dispute, you'd have seen that the editor you're defending is pretty clearly an SPA/sockpuppet who's already been blocked once over his editing against consensus, as well as caused semi-protection of the article; that this dispute has been going on at least since March, with no other editor supporting the inclusion of this badly sourced trivia until your edit today (although it's been removed by multiple experienced editors with roughly 90,000 edits to their collective credit (not to mention that the admin who most recently semiprotected the page has more than 100,000 on en.wikipedia alone), and you ought to have noticed that two different, contradictory references have been provided in "support" of the claim (certainly problematic in a BLP) -- one of which, classictvquotes, is a copyvio site, gives no sign of being a reliable source, and isn't used as a reference in any other Wikipedia articles. You should also have paid attention to the fact that multiple editors had removed the claim as unencyclopedic trivia, so that when you added it back without making prior efforts to gain support for its inclusion, you too were editing/edit warring against consensus. Talk about a lack of collegiality. Your own comments manifest a lack of willingness to WP:AGF about the experienced editors who've been dealing with this disruption for months. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The right place to discuss any dispute about the edit is on the article's talk page. I am grateful you're not trying to defend your use of edit summaries and talk pages to accuse other editors of vandalism. --Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Look again. Once again, you haven't read all the relevant comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assure you I have read your response carefully. I think at some level my point is made with you. No one could ever defend using edit summaries or talk pages to accuse other editors attempting to make good faith edits of vandalism, because there is simply no defence for it. You're accusing me of not bothering, of edit warring, of not reading. These are exactly the kind of accusations of bad faith that I am suggesting to you have no place on a collective project, they will only destroy it.--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have very strange notions of good faith. An editor who repeatedly inserts content into an article that flat-out contradicts the sources he provides is not editing in good faith. An editor like you who violates 3RR in an edit war, then threatens the good faith editor he warred against with groundless blocking, as you did last week at BBC Radio 7, and who insists that he has the right to insert disputed content into articles unless consensus is reached to remove it, has no place in a collective project, either. Get your own behavior in order before maligning those with better understanding of the relevant policies and practices than you show. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You used edit summaries and a talk page to make inflammatory and unjustified accusations against another editor, I politely asked you to consider WP:AGF. Anything else is an issue for you--Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You also gave strange ideas about politeness, too. After several months of abusive editing against consensus, and repeated insertion of text that contradicted the cited sources, the assumption of good faith was no longer warranted towards a user who was, as you deliberately ignored editing through multiple account/IPs and blocked for inapropriate editing practices, and your comments also unjustifably malign by implication the other editors involved in contesting the disruptive editing. It's clear that good faith, as it's geneally understood, is a foreign notion to you. Don't post to my talk page again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barbi Twins
Hey there.

This is kinda complicated. First off, User:AnneBank is not one of the Barbi Twins nor an official representative for them. Just wanna make that clear.

I've been working with the Twins since November on a fairly regular basis on explaining Wikipedia and how it works, as well as how we can properly assure the accuracy of their biography. So here's the sticky part: that edit about Sia being rumored to be gay from E True Hollywood story is one that they want included. They took a part in the production of that documentary, and made a point to have it included.

Now, obviously we can't just include the information as worded, and we're not one to drive rumors. I'm asking, in your opinion, is there a way that you can see to make this inclusive material? I recuse my own opinion on the matter since I'm just serving as the middle-man, so I'd appreciate your opinion so it can be passed along in the explanation of yes or no.

Thanks for your time! Keegan (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I find this a bit troubling, at least as stated. If Sia Barbi decides to make a public statement of her sexual preferences, that's appropriate to include. But including an acknowledged rumor simply because the article subject wants it included, but refuses to verify it, isn't appropriate, whatever her reasons may be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris Noth
I see you have been given a hard time by  a contributor to  Chris Noth. You have my  every  support. I had a particularly  nasty and unprovoked run  in  with  this individual a couple of months ago. He/she is a raw beginner who insults mature, regular editors and mainly resorts to righteous indignation  in defence of his/her behaviour. I may be completely  wrong, and I  hope I  am,  but  I also had a suspicion  at  the time that  there may   be some  socketry involved--Kudpung (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you're an admin but two other admins are watching my edits - in use template up
The In use template is up. Please respect it. Please revert yourself. moreno oso (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. Note that you've had this template up for significantly longer than the associated page indicates it should be up for (180 minutes), and that you've added spurious promotional content to the article, violating BLP. WP:BLP is a fundamental policy, and certainly overrides the quite unofficial "courtesy" guideline associated with the template. I'd also note that you showed no courtesy to me yesterday by reverting, without explanation or apology, an entirely appropriate, indeed required, edit I'd made to the same article, rather than revising your own planned edit after an edit conflict. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been up for awhile and is allowed. You have violated the template. You are now approaching WP:3RR with your revertsmoreno oso (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One more time. The comments accompanying the template are neither policy nor guideline, and are entirely unofficial. WP:BLP is policy. If the comments have any force, they show that you're abusing the template by keeping it up for longer than the 180 minute maximum.  And your recent edit history also indicates you're abusing the template since you're not steadily working on the article, but multitasking, watching the World Cup, posting on other subjects, etc. And removing obvious BLP violations is an exception to 3RR, and if you think anybody's going to treat removing an internal mislink as contributing to a 3RR violation you're badly mistaken. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BS and you know it. I am not abusing the template. There is no BLP violation as everything is cited and not negative. You need to read the talkpage about Wikipedia not being censored. moreno oso (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You badly need a refresher in both WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP, especially since the latter quite plainly states that its removal requirements apply "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Not fuelling, but  determined not  to  allow WP:GAME  to  become a sanctuary. Kudpung (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

john gray
stop being such a cockass

gray 4 mayor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebugeja (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Shyla Foxx
No problem. I figured that there was something obvious that I was missing and that removing it again would be the safe option plus would trigger someone to sort of tie it all together. In the end, there's nothing to tie together. Dismas |(talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"pony theory"
While it's an amusing "theory" and it's nice to see even a cite for it, it's perhaps in bad taste to bring it up in AfDs as an accusation against those making apparently poor keep arguments, I think. For that matter, the tenor of your other comments in at least Articles for deletion/European Gay Porn Awards (where I tend to agree with you and the nom that notability is not established, etc.) and Articles for deletion/Jana Jordan is questionable. Just a thought, no reply needed. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Melissa-Ashley
Could you possibly give your opinion on this debate Talk:Melissa-Ashley ? Thanks... Valrith (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

/* Joe Francis Wikipedia Page */
Hello,

Can you please provide reason as to why you undid the changes on Joe Francis' wikipedia page when reliable sources were provided? Thank you AEB1275 (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the edit summaries. Just because you can source it doesn't justify spamming entire product lines in tangentially related articles. Aren't you the newest incarnation of the corporate role account User:Mantrafilms? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Linda Reade, Rubashkin
I personally feel that the Rubashkin trial is an important part of Reade's story. How would you suggest the story should be told? Im surprised you removed the whole section. Lower458 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As per my comments at WP:BLPN. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Saw now Lower458 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me run this by you, would this be acceptable according to BLP rules?

On June 21 2010, Judge Reade sentenced former Agriprocessors CEO Sholom Rubashkin, a first time offender, to 27 years in prison for fraud. The "stiff" sentence was unusual in recent history of financial crimes, and was more than the sentence prosecutors had requested, 25 years. prompting complaints from the Orthodox Jewish community that Mr. Rubashkin was singled out and treated unfairly by Judge Reade. Lower458 (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. It's one-sided (not all the responses to the sentence have been critical, although the critical responses have been played up in the sources you cite); "some Orthodox Jewish leaders" aren't "the Orthodox Jewish community". The "first offender" comment is at best disingenuous, given that he was convicted of 86 counts of fraud committed over an extended period of time -- some would quite reasonably describe him as a "career criminal" in that regard.  And I don't see any support in your sources for the "singled out" statement -- the information provided is just as consistent with Reade being a judge who hands down harsh sentences. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

See what I updated at Reade page. I think it is pretty good and within rules.

Removed references to his age and first-time-offender.

BTW, it is a fact that the OJ community was very outspoken re the sentence, but it was not covered in any credible media as of yet. Maybe in the future.

Thanks for coaching me here.

00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lower458 (talk • contribs)


 * The revision still fails BLP rather seriously; it's conspicuously one-sided. BLP and NPOV require that all sides of a disputed matter be presented reasonably; this edit omits all praise of Reade's action (even though some was provided in news sources), nor does it present any of Reade's justification for the sentence, for which both primary and secondary sourcing should be easy enough to find. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Maybe what Im trying to say, and I am, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Lower458 (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)