User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 09

Your edits to Priyanka Chopra
Is it your contention that no screenshots may be used in any actor BLP articles? Where is the exact policy statement on that? Thousands of articles would be effected. If not, then explain your edits here. Also, why not archive most of this talk page? BollyJeff ||  talk  02:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NFC sets out the general rule that nonfree images may not be used to illustrate BLPs. In general, such nonfree screenshots may be used only in articles regarding the character, if notable enough for an independent article, or the underlying work. It is contrary to both policy and practice to use those images in BLPs absent unusual circumstances, and typically requires very specific sourced commentary satisfying NFCC#8's requirements. Perhaps posting an inquiry at WP:MCQ would be helpful if the cited policy discussion doesn't satisfy you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Jim Morrison
Please see the talk page of the image. See the two deletion discussions? There will be a third one before you arbitrarily decide this image, which has been there for quite some time, needs to go. Thanks... Doc  talk  18:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. You are dead wrong. The NFCC/fair use c;aim is based on the assertion that "No free images of this person performing are known to exist." However, the article rather clearly includes a free image of Morrison performing in 1968. This is a rather basic application of NFCC principles that is not, under any realistic principles, open to debate. I haven't tracked down who removed the free image from the article after it was first added in 2010 (after the taslk page discussion you cite, which is therefore obsolete/irrelevant), but it clearly shouldn't have been removed in favor of a nonfree equivalent. In any event, it's also not appropriate for infobox use, since that's a general/identifying use, for which a nonfree image may never be used when there's a free equivalent (in terms of identification). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are certainly not the first editor to try this with this image, if you can believe it. I'm not about to let you orphan this image so that it can be deleted that way. If you want it gone, take it to FFD. Perhaps three times is a charm. Doc  talk  19:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide a meaningful, policy-based response to the issue I raised regarding the existence of a specific, in-use free alternative serving the same purpose (depicting Morrison in performance). If not, policy requires removal of the image. Just saying "I demand an FFD" doesn't provide any basis for ignoring policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not ignoring policy. There have been two deletion discussions based on the exact same move you are pulling. If the policy "required" the image's removal, it would have been gone long ago, don't you think? When admins have tried to remove it - don't they know policy? Do you really think that I'll just say, "Oh, Gee, you're right. Remove it and we won't go to FFD."? Really? Doc  talk  19:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there haven't. The first FFD took placed two months before the specific free alternative was identified, so that couldn't have been a basis for the conclusion. The second FFD speaks only to the general availability of free images, not to the specific one now used in the article. The fact that people in good faith previously accepted the inaccurate NFCC rationale you provided doesn't mean summary action isn't appropriate now that your rationale has been shown to be demonstrably false. Please provide a policy-based reason why the image may be used despite the availability of a free image serving the same function. That a previous discussion based on less complete information came to a different conclusion is irrelevant in terms of NFCC policy. No, I don't think you're going to acknowledge your error, but WP:AGF requires me to give you the opportunity to do the right thing. It won't be my fault if you don't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to rehash the arguments why the other images are less than adequate in conveying the same meaning as the current image; I am on a mobile device and cannot type normally. I will be back on a normal computer several hours from now, and we can get into it then. In the meantime, you were bold in reverting the image, and your bold change was reverted. This image does not require some immediate removal, and claiming that it does is not accurate. Please do not arbitrarily remove it again as a next step. Doc  talk  20:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)−
 * BRD, which is not policy, is not an excuse for allowing policy violations to stand when no policy-based arguments for retaining them is advanced, and you're conspicuously refusing to advance one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had enough of the insinuations. I'm not sure who made your interpretation of NFCC the letter of the law, but I think you should understand that by throwing around terms like "blatant" and "conspicuous", you are not practicing the AGF that you quoted above. I already told you, I am on a mobile device and cannot type or research adequately. So just relax, and know that there are tons of FU images out there for you to focus on until I get back. If you cannot wait, file a FfD. Cheers... Doc  talk  21:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No insinuations. "Dead wrong" isn't inconsistent with good faith, and if you actually had a counterargument, you could have stated in with less trouble than all these posts involve. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

Well, I've helped defend it in a couple of deletion discussions, so your observation of me having no counter argument is off base. I do not have to prove anything to you, but to the community. 2 deletion discussions agreed with my arguments. I will be back to you on this issue later. Doc  talk  21:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's approacing a bad faith response. I've asked you for an argument to the specific claim, not pointed out before today, that the NFCC rationale is clearly incorrect because a free image of Morrison singing/performing not only exists but is present in the article. That means, by policy, the nonfree image must be removed. Since your arguments in the FFDs were essentially that no such image existed, the arguments are contradicted by undisputed fact, can't stand, and can't be treated as substantial, let alone determinative. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The free image alternatives do not adequately convey the same meaning as the non-free image, and since the subject is deceased, creating a new free image is impossible. It's allowable under NFCC. Period. That was determined after two prior deletion discussions. Read them again, or file a new one. Do you think this is my first day here? Doc  talk  22:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're stlll not addressing the specific image, just providing generic phrasing. You don't deny that the rationale is invalid (it's quite plainly incorrect), and referring to prior FFDs where the issue wasn't raised is neither relevant nor helpful, nor is trying to personalize the argument. There's a free image of Morrison performing. ILIKETHENONFREEIMAGEBETTER isn't an exception to NFCC requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

All those images existed when the most recent deletion discussion was initiated, so any image you are referring to has been considered at least as recently as a few months ago. This is nothing new, Hullaballoo. Doc  talk  22:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm back, BTW, with several hours available to discuss this tonight. Yay, right? ;P I'll tell you again, however, that FfD is the way to go with this if you demand this image be gone. I am encouraging you to file it, several times over now! I have absolutely no qualms about agreeing with any decision that is made, whether I like it or not. If it is found that the image fails the NFCC this time: I will abide by it. Just like I always have said I would. But I will not allow any editor to just swoop in and use their "NFCC interpretation" to justify outright removal of the image from the article. And orphaning it by removing it from the article means having it deleted. It's not going to happen like that, as it deserves the same due process that it has been afforded all along. If it is decided that it must be deleted, you will not see me uploading a new version. I never said that I would, or that I wouldn't abide by what is decided. But you alone are not going to decide this image's fate. You can only get the ball rolling. Cheers... Doc  talk  04:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Deletion
hi,greeting from Mumbai.i hope you have a nice perception for indians :D :D anyways recently i see your note on my talk page. I think i am getting too much attention nowadays.So, I've created sufficient articles majority of them is places in India.this was the second.whenever i create any article for living persons definitely it meets deletion criteria.Initially i used to ignore them but now it has become a serious issue.I've included all the information with proper references.i also provided much more realistic things that suits her,actually her real plans.she's well connected with twitter also.so that only the things have been added which she's currently working.artcles make of no use when it has no sufficient references cos references play an important role to find out whether that written thing really exits or not.actually i am unable to get what are the things that is helping to make article for speedy deletion.the person is living, she's not dead.her importance, and everything is provided but i am stuck.maybe i am not experienced user that's why something is missing.Dear friend, i request you to let me know what are the things i need to provide so that it could save from deletion.i expect a proper guidance from you.i also pardon if i've used any bad or misbehavior kind of words or statement do help and keep guiding me thank youRpaigu (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lahaie article
So how You think, that should be written article about nude actress? I think the bra size and performed scenes is proper for it. LGBT, and other fact is also interesting - because it is really hard to believe that women like her don't get married. So please show me the way to write it or do it for Yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Archiving this page and File:John David Carson.jpg
Have you considered archiving all of your messages? This is getting larger. Also, why removing File:John David Carson.jpg from a biography of the presumably living person? That picture is of the very old movie from more than 35 years ago. He is less recognizable today. --George Ho (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still awaiting your reply. By the way, may I help you archive this talk page, please? --George Ho (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Non free image
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Travancore-Cochin&diff=491289820&oldid=487098173 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A._J._John.JPG

Please consider removing the image itself from wikipedia.

Lyrical abstraction
The article requires imagery. We have been using contemporary imagery for many years with Fair use rationales. I would greatly appreciate your taking your complaints to the talk page before any further edit warring on your part. Thank you...Modernist (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the templates, and the gallery per your suggestions. The imagery used does relate to the text; as all those artists are mentioned; although there can always be more descriptive referenced text added...Modernist (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Josh Byrne Brendan Lambert Step by Step.jpg
Why did you remove this image from Josh Byrne, a BLP? True, this image could be replaceable, but there is no way to prove that this image is replaceable. Also, I don't see any di-disputed fair use rationale or di-replaceable fair use tagged. The subject is retired from acting, so must I find a screenshot of him? --George Ho (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Under WP:NFCCE, which is policy, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. The exception you inoke is invoked inaccurately; it does not apply to performers in general, but to those "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance." It does not apply simply because alternative images have not been found, or appear difficult to create. When the NFCC violation is clear, and the rationale is defective on its face, removal from the pertinent article is appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If lack of alternatives are not the reason, how can I correct a rationale to make this image kept? If primary visualization is not the real reason to keep this image, what are other more suitable non-free images. --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't. This nonfree image fails our NFC policy for all plausible uses. Failure to locate a free alternative isn't itaelf an exception to NFCC requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your ability to communicate with other people
Well, I unwatched Josh Byrne because I assumed that things would be all right. However, removing images from articles, such as Josh Byrne, Steve Urkel, and John David Carson without some proper reasoning and/or proper communication with uploaders (or adders who are not uploaders) concerns me. I have not seen evidence of your usually using other alternatives first, such as communication before tagging, and the Steve Urkel case concerns me. In the past, I have made mistakes, such as lacking good faith on other people, like Dr. Blofeld, a real hard-worker of Wikipedia. True, I should have not used Getty Images, but any Getty Image should have been first either tagged as di-disputed fair use rationale or discussed before removing or tagging rather than removed and then debated. Speaking of Dr. Blofeld, I have discussed one image used in American in Paris (film), and he has not responded yet. Still, I'm waiting for his response. --George Ho (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, basic NFCC policy enforcement is a routine task that doesn't require prior discussion. This is a textbook case of inappropriate use of a nonfree image, and a short, plain statement in the edit of the basis for the edit is all that relevant policy and guidelines call for. Remember, by NFCC policy, the burden of proof is on those wishing to retain an image, and under WP:NFCCE, which is also policy, there is no general requirement for tagging or discussion in cases of evident NFCC violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it would take an uploader to use db-g7 to remove one image that lacks ability to increase reader's understanding of the image's subject. To you, prior discussions are not necessary. However, I have abused my ability to communicate with others, and I am under mentorship. I would hope that you are not following the same path I have been through. When I communicated Flyer22 about non-free images used in Ryan Lavery, such as one seduction scene and motorcycle scene, she told me that she didn't mind my removing these images. Therefore, I used db-g7 under good-faith on other people. Not everyone knows, has to know, or cares about copyrights, yet there must be good-faith communication involved.--George Ho (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are being rather tendentious now. These are generally uncontroversial mattera, for which the only necessary good faith communication is the edit summary. I've been doing routine NFCC policy enforcement for years and probably received more complaints from you today that I've received in a typical year. That should be taken as an indication that your understanding of communication requirements and/or of NFCC requirements is problematic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all image cases are the same, not all articles are the same, and even not all rationales are the same. Accusing me of not understanding them... I do understand that use of one image must increase readers' understanding of a topic successfully, not interfere commercial opportunities, require the reason itself of using an image, and indicate irreplaceability of an image. However, John David Carson was supposed to be dead, but he still is considered living because no obituaries have been found yet. WP:BLP doesn't explain the use of non-free images explicitly, yet you cited it in edit summaries as a reason for removing images, such as that article and Josh Byrne. I haven't seen your edit summaries that says "primary visual identification of early appearance is not a valid reason to increase readers' understanding of the living, retired person". --George Ho (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As one of George's mentors, I've been asked to opine on this case, which I hope isn't a problem. Halluaballoo, could you please tag an image with {{subst:rfu}} when you remove an image, and notify the uploader as well? This is a standard practice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I went to Ffd, because I wouldn't just see an image erased, lest it be ticked off of a list. Luckily, another editor found a substitute, and all is happy. Image deletion is necessary, and Hullaballoo is performing a valuable service. But I agree with the suggestion to start thinking about friendly tagging, as this is an area that can burn even the best-intentioned editor out. I've seen it, with admins even. Jus' sayin'... Doc   talk  07:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also been invited to have a look and I counted several users that asked you to tag files and inform uploaders if you dispute fair use. I fully agree that "the burden of proof is on those wishing to retain an image" but if you remove files without telling the uploaders how do you expect them to deliver that proof? If you inform uploaders and give a good reason there is a good chance that they understand it and still think that Wikipedia is a good place to be. But if you remove files without telling the uploaders then they will probably not understand why and we risk ending up with angry users that think that Wikipedia is a bad place and that wiki users are unhelpful.
 * Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale has been around since 2007 and when it was nominated for deletion in 2009 the result was a clear "keep". I think that it is a pretty good proof that the template is meant to be used. So please use it and I'm sure you will get more positive responce. --MGA73 (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. That's not called for by policy or guideline, and is, at best, highly disputed. I've been doing NFCC enforcement for years, and one of the few things that's clearest about the process is that, as here, the most vigorous defenses of NFCC violations come from users who don't understand NFCC requirements are are intent on preserving uses that are among the clearest violations. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free_content for a current discussion of the image removal process. I've wasted more time in trying to explain NFC policy basics to the user who started this rudely headered topic than I had to spend in the previous year or two's worth of NFCC disputes (and my recollection is that, when taken to NFC or to the MCQ board, in only one case was my removal not sustained. Frankly, there are too many users who think they may make exceptions to WMF policy whenever they think they have a good reason. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about you being right or wrong in your judgement but about if it is a good idea to inform uploaders or not. I do not see a concensus there that it is a bad idea to inform uploaders. I'm not expecting that you can get everyone to understand or agree on when non-free use is ok and I do not expect you or anyone else to keep discussing a file if it is clearly not eligible for non-free use. But it will only take you 5 (?) seconds to tag the file and leave a notice on the uploaders talk page. Why is it so bad to inform uploaders? --MGA73 (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice you cite no policy, guidelines, or relevant discussions. There's no consensus supporting your position, and it doesn't represent general practice. Your argument is also poorly informed; it's often the case that the uploader of an image isn't responsible for the disputed use, and it would take nontrivial effort to track them down. I see no reason, no basis in policy or guideline, no consensus practice saying that content issues related to images are handled differently than other content issues. If an image ends up being orphaned, than other processes notify the uploader. Frankly, I've wasted way too much time trying to discuss NFCC requirements with a problem user who's less interested in maintaining encyclopedic quality than in finding excuses for keeping valueless content he likes . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that I have not quoted a policy or a guideline saying that it is good practice to inform uploaders - I hoped you would listen to kind requests so I did not have to fill up your talk page with links to good practice, common sense and policies. But I linked to Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale and if you read it it says "Notify the uploader with: ...". The template is a speedy deletion template and if you check Criteria for speedy deletion it says: "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination ..." (and that page is a "an English Wikipedia policy"). I asked you why you think it is a bad idea to inform uploaders but you never told why you think that informing uploaders is a bad idea. If you really think it is a bad idea to inform uploaders then why don't you change the policy and the templates?
 * If the file ends up being orphan then a bot or another user would hopefully tag the file. But then the user is informed with a template that tells them "You may add it back if you think that that will be useful." If you use Twinkle it takes you 5 seconds to inform uploader.
 * I'm not one of the users that is "finding excuses for keeping valueless content". I do not like fair use at all!. I just think it is a good idea to inform users and use the correct reason - in this case that the use is disputes and not that it is orphan. --MGA73 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Doing either way too excessively can be stressful to the uploader. So I did the alternative: without tagging the image or removing it from the article (unless there is at least one rationale for the other article), I notified the uploader about possible violation of NFCC and then waited for response. --George Ho (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Jazy Berlin
I put a prod on this article, however it is another porn actor article by User:Mumbaifreaks. You've speedy the past few, maybe this one is similar too. Thank goodness the wife is asleep, because I didn't want to make a lame excuse for looking at Jazy Berlin's photos for "Wikipedia research". Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

lol, but you are too old to do that searching and all :D :D Mumbaifreaks (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My Ruin
You should have a look at this My Ruin. It needs a lot of editing help. I don't know where to start. Good Luck. Lifespan9 (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Keshubhaipatel.jpg
Hello, this does not appear to be a correct rationale for removing a non-free image with a fair use rationale on a BLP page (see WP:NFC). The individual has retired from active politics and does not make frequent public appearances. Please consider re-including the image on Keshubhai Patel. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Megan Fox article
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You most likely aren't watching this article, but I have seen you remove gossip from it before. Would you mind keeping a close eye on it? I've seen crap and unsourced information being added to it lately, and of course have reverted each time. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Use of nonfree images in templates
Thank you for informing me. I wasn't aware that I have violated this policy. --Comparativist1 (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

NFCC Misunderstanding
Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz- I clearly am misunderstanding NFCC #8 and NFCC #3A, as you pointed out with your recent edit summary for Ball State Cardinals men's basketball. In the future, if something that I do is "wretchedly illogical" please feel free to come to my talk page and help clear things up rather than make remarks in your edit summary that appear as personal digs rather than a summary of what you changed. I understand that policing images is a frustrating and thankless task, and one that usually leads to angry editors. However, edit summaries like this don't do much to help.

Please allow me to explain my thought process, and then feel free to point out where I am wrong. On the above referenced page, the university's athletic logo, which they use for their men's basketball team, was placed in a template that refers to the men's basketball team's rivalry with another university's team. The other university's team's logo was also used. Each image has a non-free media information and use rationale listed on its file page. My understanding of NFCC #8 is that a non-free image that is a logo is okay to use if it significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. I was operating under the assumption that the two logos fell into this category of acceptable use since it operates similar to the logos on Duke Blue Devils men's basketball, Louisville Cardinals men's basketball, Carolina–Duke rivalry, and many other articles. My understanding of NFCC #3A is that multiple non-free images are only to be used if there is no single image that would be equivalent. As there is no equivalent singular image that I am aware of, I used both images in a similar fashion to what is used at Indiana–Purdue rivalry, in addition to the Carolina-Duke rivalry mentioned above.

I don't doubt that I am wrong somewhere, as you are obviously extremely adamant that the use of the images is a violation. However, I don't know where. Please help me understand where I'm wrong and what I'm not understanding.

City boy77 (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing userpage for non-free content
Getting upset is out of question. I should rather thank you for making the thing and the rule clear to me. I must thank you for the edit of my user page in that regard too. Thank you very much. --58.97.245.221 (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion.
Thank you for your message. I was unaware of the image's non-free status and of course I don't take anything personally; the rules are the rules :). If I'd have known that the image shouldn't have been on there I'd have gotten rid of it. As I am quite new to Wikipedia, would you be able to tell me where this status information is listed? Also, in future, I would prefer it if you left a message on my talk page, prompting me to act, rather than going ahead and doing it yourself. Kind regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Radon image
Hello, please can you me explain the difference between the Radon image in the article Radon and in the tamplate Template:Periodic table (noble gases)? Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Radon is an article. Template:Periodic table (noble gases) is not an article. By policy concerning use of copyrighted images, such an image may only be used in articles, not in templates. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Error in your evidence
Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence – That's not correct. As far as I'm aware, this post from February 2010 is the first time Ash is mentioned on the Wikipedia Review. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

NFCC Policy Question
The image in question on the user page located at User:153.107.33.161 belongs to the owner of the userpage, the NSW Department of Education and Families. I am curious as to why it is not permitted to display images to which the copyright is owned on a user page. NotinREALITY 01:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because, by the en-wiki policy regarding the use of copyrighted images, WP:NFCC, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace". User pages are not articles and are outside the article namespace. The Department is not the "owner" of the userpage; the Wikimedia Foundation is; and the WMF does not allow the use of images, except as "fair use" in articles (and not even all fair uses), unless the images are free for both noncommercial and commercial reuse. Yes, in cases like this, bureaucracy may seem to be trumping logic, but the practicalities of relaxing the rule would be daunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers :D Thanks for the informative message, much appreciated NotinREALITY 01:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanaya Irani
I believe you have had a look at a few versions of this article. On 9 June 2012 I rewrote the article, adding references, removing a link to (what appeared to be - in my opinion) a fan site that was called her 'official website'(I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on this, maybe I was in the wrong). Since then another editor Saurabhkr wiki reverted my edit to that which contained unsourced phrases (a fan site calls her 'Television's Barbie Doll'), fan awards (the Galaxy awards are unofficial awards as proved (I believe) by the Facebook page. Saurabhkr then copied and pasted most of my words, but removed references and added unsourced content (as I believe you have seen).

I did not want to start an edit war with the user. I have asked for a reason for their revert, but I just wanted an independent opinion on the matter. I am not at all angry with the revert - just confused about what I did wrong. Sorry for bothering you. Have a good day :) Coolcool2012 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Update - The matter is sorted, for now. Thanks, Coolcool2012 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonfree content on my userpage
Okay. Didnt check whether it was free or not. But the substituted ape looks good too. (But the albino gorilla's nicer though) --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Talking about you
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Village pump (miscellaneous) regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Abuse from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you. The other involved editor left a message on your user-page, which I removed as mis-placed. —DMacks (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits in Stephanie Adams article
Can you please remove only the references you were referring to and not everything? I added more information that was mostly referenced by third party sources, not just the subject's press release. Thanks! Fiiinally (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I see the links you were referring to and removed them. Fiiinally (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The material was generally unsuitable for a BLP. The "vampire" claptrap, for example, is an egregiously incorrect alteration of the cited source and omits the supposed speaker's denial of the quote. The Observer material is similarly misrepresented, and other material is little more than unsourced repetition of the subject's self-promotion. The is a long-running dispute and your changes, opposed by more than one editor, need to have consensus established, either on the talk page or the BLP noticeboard, before being reinserted. You're also at risk of WP:3RR and edit warring sanctions, which can include suspension of editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I add the lawsuit in NJ back? The Learning Annex sentence looks somewhat controversial and, given what you've said, I'd like to remove that or add the quote back to not make it look like just one trivial sentence. Fiiinally (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the number of editors involved now, these are issues you should raise on the article talk page where they are more likely to be addressed by everyone involved. You also need to read sources more carefully; that quote you keep ascribing to the course/lecture actually comes from an interview with the columnist you cite. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Christie Brinkley shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanthorn (talk • contribs) 18:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: Nonfree content on your userpage
Oh, I apologize about that ^-^' As you can see, I am a n00b, fresh from Wikia, where anyone can decorate their page with any images. I never claimed it was mine, but if it's part of the rules, then so be it. Thank you for enlightening me with that info, and you don't need to feel bad about editing my page, I don't mind. Thanks, and keep up the good work! - TidusTehSacrificer357 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talking about you behind your back
... here. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Hungary
Next time, a reverting will be enough. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look
Please have a look here and do try to avoid getting into an edit war with this issue. Thanks Leontopodium alpinum (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nonfree content on userpage
No worries, I'd accidentally left a link to it there without thinking. Thanks for informing me. They had previously been uploaded to Wikimedia as free images but deleted as I hadn't understood the copyright. When I re-uploaded one for fair use on wikipedia the link for it was still on my userpage from when I thought it was a free image. Cheers  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  12:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

County of Los Angeles
Do you know that the flag of City of Los Angeles in the City template, the same way used in the County template? What is the difference? The flag is a public domain as it has been documented. Ucla90024 (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the File page for the county flag image, that image is nonfree. It's been listed as nonfree since it was originally uploaded more than two years ago. If you think that the listing is incorrect, I'd suggest raising the matter at WP:MCQ. FWIW, the city flag icon is identified as an original image of the flag, created and CC-licensed for Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User page
While I embrace WP's rules and conditions of use, I take umbrage at another user making alterations to my userpage without prior consultations with me first. Having read the guideline, the image will now remain off of my page. This, I want known, is not out of respect for your edit, but as a commitment to adhere to WP's policies and guidelines (however much I disagree with them).

Second to that, may I remind you of this old maxim; "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I suggest you take a look at WP:TALKCOND,  a guideline which you should digest as soon as possible. It strikes me that you need to get your own talk page/user page into some sort of order first instead of going around worrying about other peoples. -- CassiantoTalk 05:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:VPP
Since you are interested in Getty Images and image copyrights, you can click the title above to join in. --George Ho (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Tony Radevski for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tony Radevski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tony Radevski (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Help on improving articel for Judy Ann Santos
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have been contributing articles in Wikipedia since 2004, however, I locked my old account, as such I had to create a new one, I saw your contributions for articles concernning biographies of living persons, will it be alright if I ask for you help on improving an article for Judy Ann Santos, I figured you don't have an idea of who she is, but I wanted to contribute in improving this article with a neutral point of view, i have already started with the lead, though the body/section headings need would need to be refurbished as it is mainly of fansite content. My aim is to have it tagged as one of the featured articles. Your inputs and help will be greatly appreciated Pseud 14 (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your help would be appreciated
I cannot discuss this matter on here right now. If you could please email me at uno1dos2tres3quatro4@gmail.com (or put your email address below this message) I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.203.79.114 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Response
I apologize. It wasn't my intention to break the rules. In the future I will be more careful and think about the possible consequences of my actions. Thank you. --Aries no Mur (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Curtis Books


The article Curtis Books has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages
Dear Author/Wolfowitz

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address recently edited an article on Psychotherapy. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No offense
But, fuck you think you're doing, removing my beautiful image from my profile? --AlphaQHeart (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cliff_Stanford

AkaSylvia (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You know better than that
Your edit summary to had to be revdeleted. Leaving aside the slow-burning revert war, if you do that again you are likely to attract unwelcome attention. I am no fan of people editing their own articles, but as a long-term Wikipedian you can hardly fail to be aware that when we disagree with an article subject, however much we may not like them, we do so in a moderate tone so as to avoid any appearance of malice. We can defend inclusion of factual information the subject does not like, should push come to shove, but if the subject can make a case that it is being done with malicious intent then it puts the project in serious jeopardy regardless of the truth or otherwise of the content at issue. Do you understand why that edit summary would be a problem now? Guy (Help!) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Cliff Stanford
Hello HW. I have been wondering whether I should go ahead and answer the edit request at Talk:Cliff Stanford, as it has been a while since it was requested and has had no opposition. However, I can't help but feel that you might want to comment on it, as you were involved in the discussion prior to the page being protected. Does the section look acceptable to you now? If I don't hear anything else in say, four days, I think I'll go ahead and add the section to the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:THNVNCBLCN1973.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:THNVNCBLCN1973.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile
Hello HW. Saw this edit summary and it brought a smile to my day. Being old enough to have seen them as a kid I think you might be right :-) Of course that also means I remember when I had to get out of my chair and walk up to the TV and turn the dial to change channels. Hanson's article gets hit a lot at this time of year so I appreciate the help in rvting the fan stuff. Cheers and enjoy your week. MarnetteD | Talk 22:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Earth Abides
Hello--I noticed that you added the review by P. Schuyler Miller to the Earth Abides page. If I'm correct that you're responsible for this edit--sorry for the intrusion if you're not--let me say that this is an excellent addition. I'm an SF fan, collector, and aspiring critic--I'm currently writing a dissertation on SF--and I've been looking for a copy of Miller's review. Would you be willing to share it? Jesse Ramirez (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been told repeatedly...
....that your edits on any Howard Stern Show related article are the product of your own POV and are not welcome and against group consensus. IF the Howard Stern Show wikiproject ever gets off the ground you are certain to be excluded from it on the grounds that you seem to violate WP:DICK at least six times a day. Dkendr (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free
Could you tell me all the countries which the pictures of their emblems are non-free? Thank. ༆ (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Asian pornographic actors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiffany Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see
Pope's image -- Ե րևանցի talk  02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Jennifer Lopez
Hi there. The image shouldn't be removed. The issue, cover and its reactions are discussed; not indepth, but they are discussed. The cover is described (the actual look of it) as well as some reactions from celebrities and Lopez herself. It is a notable event that occurred because of her being away from the media limelight for such a long period of time. Ar re   07:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Go away
Could you go away for heaven's sake? Of all possible Afd's to opine to, you choose the two that I specifically initiated and find unnecessary flaws about my conduct as opposed to addressing the discussion at hand. Till 14:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting....accusing me of uncivil behaviour despite calling me a "lout". Do everyone a favour and find something productive to do on this project! Till  04:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed your rude accusations against me at the Afd. Please refrain from engaging in such behaviour in the future. Thanks. Till  05:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Archive
Hey Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I see that your talk page has 500 threads! Have you considered archiving your talk page? :) — ΛΧΣ  21  03:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I second this! — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013
Hello, I'm Status. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs (2nd nomination) that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ''I personally took "lout" as meaning an aggressive, angry person, but I looked it up and it has several different meanings to it. I'm not sure which one you meant by it, but to be fair to all parties...'' — Statυs  ( talk,  contribs ) 04:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucien Freud
Please let me know when you are done here, so I can revert you in one go. I'm afraid these edits are not helpful. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal life info
Hello, HW. I've come across your edits enough times now to see that you take personal life section info very seriously, but I have to dispute your general approach here. I don't intend this to sound mean, but you do seem to be on a blanking crusade: you simply remove info you object to and then use whatever edit summary to justify it. If the info is unsourced, I don't dispute the edits, but when it comes to removing sourced info, you're in a very grey area. In terms of your recent edits, you've been reverted at Julie Christie, Blake Lively, and by me at Rashida Jones. Clearly your edits are open to debate. If you want to argue WP:GOSSIP, feel free, but it's a subjective policy, and you should be seeking a consensus on individual talk pages before removing neutral, sourced info, or at least doing so before removing it a second time. It's a matter of good-faith editing and I'm sure editors will willingly join such discussions.  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 16:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Image removed
Regarding [this action] by you: Since the Pakistan Army surrendered to the Indian Army, of the 3 article the image was earlier used in, it has most significance in the article you removed it from. The image signifies the end to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, where the Pakistani forces surrendered to the Indian forces, as the image shows: signing of the military surrender. Of course, that is my reasoning. I would like to hear yours. Thanks! Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It's in the edit summary. You don't need a picture of the surrender ceremony to understand the surrender, and it adds nothing meaningful to the reader's understanding of the essential facts. Therefore, you can't use a nonfree image to illustrate the event, per WMF policy. A free image would be different. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I understood that. My question was different. Why was the image removed from Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 but kept on Bangladesh Liberation War? I was, in my previous post, suggesting that Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a better place for the image than Bangladesh Liberation War. Or will the image be removed from there too? Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 17:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Because there's an actual NFCC rationale for use in that article, which isn't transparently invalid. Right now I'm running through a database report and removing usages that I believe fail both substantive and procedural requirements. That use was at least inserted via a proper procedure. I think you're correct in seeing that it fails the substantive test, but I might take it to FFD first. I'd certainly be OK with your removing it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. I would rather not do it myself because i have little knowledge about image issues and would not like to do something that i will not be able to defend later :) But, thanks! Also, may i suggest archiving your talk page? :P Anir1uph &#124; talk &#124; contrib 18:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Greek military junta of 1967–1974
Please understand the historic significance of the picture you are reverting. This is not a mere "junta picture". It is the picture of the junta being approved by the king. It set the tone for all later developments in Greece including the abolition of the monarchy. Put it up for deletion if you wish to let other persons express their opinions but do not remove it from the article as being "redundant". It definitely is not. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The transgressions of Mhazard9!
Use of non-free images on Wikipedia is evaluated on an article-by-article basis. A non-free image must satisfy each of the NFCC criteria (especially #8) for each article in which it is used. A non-free image illustrating a biography, for example, may not be used to illustrate a different article in which the bio subject is discussed. Please read WP:NFCC and related policies and guidelines before adding images to articles. "Thematic relevance" is far below our requirements for use of non-free content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The improper use of copyrighted images by Mhazard9!

Reply to Mr. H. Wolfowitz:

Your having spoken in the craven plural “Our”, indicates it is best to await your bully-boy boredom to overwhelm you, as you sit (in uniform and Sam Browne belt) and watch for me to restore the thematically pertinent images, and then revert my restoring of the the thematically images when and because of. . . . Neverthenonetheless, the substance of the articles you have vandalised, by removing images that substantiate the text, in the name of the mob, remains faithful, true, and accurate to the factual record. Yet, I recommend you show yourself some self-respect, learn the language of publishing: the coyness of non-free image factually is a copyrighted image.

Remember, you have a moral obligation to be intelligent; do not prostitute your integrity (personal and editorial) in service to the political agenda of your illiberal lessers, i.e. either you lead, you follow, or you get out of the way, because the Appeal to authority is an anti-intellectaul cop-out. . . that contradicts your “harmless old man” biography. Recall Polonius's counsel to his son: "To thine own self be true", and recall that Jimbo Wales, himself, recommends that rules be flouted when they interfere with producing “the best possible article”.

Review these facts: [NFCC-violating use of nonfree image removed by HW].

Licensing
[Another NFCC violation removed by HW]

Summary
Cover of The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon.

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your recent editing history at European Parliament election, 2014 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
 * The same warning you made me for the same reasons. You have to justify your position as much as I doJulien-223 (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Donna Hilley
Just a heads-up: Hilley was president of Sony/ATV, which is not the same as Sony Music Nashville. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi Hullaballo!

Your input on my talk page, in regards to an Award section that has been reverted by yourself and another user on the List of gay pornography awards article, would be much appreciated! Thank you, — Mel bourne Star  ☆ talk 09:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Jewelpet soundtracks
About your edit, I suggest that you shouldn't remove those images despite you think all of them break some rules. These are needed to represent the article that is shown and you were only causing trouble.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 05:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read the applicable policies and guidelines regarding the use of nonfree content such as album covers, in particular WP:NFC #2 and WP:NFLISTS. There are hundreds if not thousands of similar articles here which do not use such images; your claim that the cover images are "needed" contravenes both specific guideline text as well as well-established, consensus-based practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Your problem is that all the images there COMPLIES TO THE FAIR USE RATIONATES. Complaining that you think it breaks "no valid article-specific NFCC rationale" or so on will not give you brownie points. You need to understand better that they don't break certain rules. As said in WP:NFCC: "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." In other terms, don't remove those images, thinking that they don't qualify for your standards.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And last thing, those are COPYRIGHTED IMAGES from the original sources.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing Images from the "Hungary" Article
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I would like to ask you about these edits of yours. You wrote in the edit tag that "fails NFCC#8, no valid article-specific NFCC rationale". However, both images that you removed contain fair use rationales specifically for the "Hungary" article. I think that both of them are highly significant for the article. Could you please explain their removal? Thanks and cheers, K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  22:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The images clearly fail WP:NFCC. They convey only negligible information, beyond what can be conveyed by text alone. The NFCC rationales provided contain no explanation of the way the applicable NFCC criteria are satisfied; sayong that a use "illustrates" an article or "presents" content is on its face insufficient to provide a valid rationale. The significance of a matter is nowhere near enough to justify, under WMF policy, the use of a nonfree image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your prompt reply. Why do you think that "The significance of a matter is nowhere near enough to justify, under WMF policy, the use of a nonfree image"? Is this your subjective, personal opinion or is there a clear-cut rule about this? WP:NFCC seems quite vague to me, it allows a broad range of interpretations and, hence, at the moment I do not see why the images would violate it. For example, in my opinion, the cover of the Time magazine significantly increases readers' understanding of the Revolution of 1956 and its international reception. Tschüss,  K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  22:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Under WMF policy, nonfree images are generally not allowed on Wikipedia, and exceptions are allowed under narrow criteria. The significance of the subject illustrated is not one of those criteria. Nor is the communicative value of an image, standing alone, sufficient; what is essential is that the image provide information or understanding to the reader, in the context of the statement being illustrated, that text cannot convey. In this case, for example, whatever pertinent is communicated by the cover is equally well (if not better) conveyed by the statement that Time named the cover subject its Man of the Year. Note that the standard licensing template requires that the image be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question" (which is necessary, but not sufficient to justify use); here, it is the "Man of the Year" designation, not the publication of a cover feature, that is being illustrated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's only your subjective interpretation of the quite vague rules (as pointed out correctly by Koertefa), nothing more. The issue of the Time magazine picture was 4 years ago, where a consensus was reached, which you seem to disregard completely. Also, the reasoning above doesn't say anything about your resentment of the Ferenc Puskás picture, who's specifically mentioned in the article even. -- CoolKoon (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You rather clearly need to review both the discussion you cite, where the closer "strongly recommend[ed] reducing use of the image to only one article, where it is actually discussed (i.e. Hungarian Revolution of 1956)," as well as the applicable NFCC criteria, where en-Wiki consensus about the applicable exemption doctrine has tightened considerably in the last five years. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the image's use has never diverged to anything beyond the 1956 revolution. In fact the very reason the image's in the article is because it talks about the 1956 events in Hungary and the picture is meant to illustrate the international response to the revolution. The fact that non-free image doctrine has been tightened in the last couple of years is kinda irrelevant because it still fulfills all the criteria mentioned in the rule cited above. Curiously enough up until now nobody has questioned this, since everyone has agreed to a kind of consensus. And if you think that any prior consensus is irrelevant and they SHOULD be broken on the grounds of some rules that have "tightened considerably in the last five years", then I really hope that none of the admins agree with you (besides, the picture still meets all the criteria set out in the rule above). The reason for it is that breaking consensus is a road to hell. Or would you suggest breaking consensus e.g. in case of Gdansk/Danzig as well? Or some other hot topics where a consensus has been negotiated so that the opposing parties don't create their own "conspiracy networks" only to emphasize their points (Eastern European mailing list/Digwuren anyone)? Because (since you insist on wikilawyering so much) if the rules you cite are to be applied consistently, then all the other consensuses should be broken in favor of rule changes as well. Or more likely NONE should be broken in favor of rule changes. Or do you REALLY think that the rules are there only for the sake of their presence? That "the bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy"? -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're in serious need of a reality check, not to mention a civility refresher. The admin who assessed consensus in the FFD you're harping on then removed the disputed image from the article in question, more than once. . And he wasn't the only one. . And it was kept out for at least three years.  I haven't checked to see who snuck it back in, but that was the action against consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A reality check? A civility refresher?! Don't you feel the gigantic hypocrisy (and contradiction) in your words? Why'd you come to the Hungary article? Only to vandalize it? Because that's where you felt like testing the limits of your ego trip? And now why are you arguing with an edit which pertains to a lack of free use rationale (which has been subsequently filled in) and thus being absolutely pointless? Also, why are you pasting in the very same edit twice (to make it look like the admin has done it twice)? Do you consider everyone else that stupid or you're just this careless? What's your agenda anyway? Why is it that almost ALL the notices on your talk page complain about you for the very same reasons I do? A coincidence perhaps? -- CoolKoon (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The second link is fixed. Since you're not responding to any of the substantive points -- most importantly, that the FFD you cite was the basis for the same image removal you now object to, you're just being pointlessly abusive to the point where you may be subject to sanctions, especially if you persist. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * May be subject to sanctions? WP:BOOMERANG anyone? It's quite interesting that in your last couple of replies you avoided the matter of the Ferenc Puskás photo, concentrating only on the Time cover photo. Why don't you just stop your hate campaign against both pictures and leave it as is? BOTH the images have a fair use rationale, both pictures are to the point (and even if the Time cover isn't quite so, the article can always be modified to include some additional reference to the illustrations) and the fact that the Time image has ALWAYS been reinserted (despite the removals by the admin as you pointed out) speaks much about the fact that ALL the regular editors of the article consider it of utmost importance. Besides, when an admin makes an edit, it bears no more weight than a regular user's edit. You see it's quite hypocritical to use some petty wikilawyering and admin edits as excuses to remove content, thus making your arguments just as groundless and illogical as you want to make mine look like. Can't you feel the irony in this? -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit busy in my real life. Hope, the discussion did not become too heated. Could you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, give me the link where these narrow criteria of allowing nonfree images on Wikipedia are described? If it is this, then it is very vague and it can be interpreted several ways. Also, please take a look at the National Industrial Recovery Act, or Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Joseph Gurney Cannon, or Robert Dollar articles. They feature pictures showing the cover of the Time magazine. Why can they do that? And what is the problem with the Ferenc Puskás image? Would this picture be better for copyright reasons? Do you have an idea how to get a free image of Ferenc Puskás? BTW: how do you recognize that an image is free? K &oelig;rte F  a  { ταλκ }  19:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC and WP:NFC are the governing policy and guidelines, with much useful information on the associated discussion pages, noticeboards, and deletion discussion pages. Many early Time magazine covers are free/public domain because Time failed to renew its copyrights. All post-1945 issues remain under copyright, as do most of those between 1936 and 1945. To check if an image is free, begin by clicking on the image to navigate to the file description page (example: File:Time Magazine - first cover.jpg). The information there isn't always correct, but a user unfamiliar with copyright rules is usually OK in following it. The Puskas image you've found appears to be free, assuming Commons did its work properly, and can be used on-wiki. Since the current image isn't free, but can be replaced by a free alternative like that one, it can't be used on Wikipedia at all! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. So the cover of the Time magazine should not be used, but the free version of Ferenc Puskás's image can be used without copyright issues in the article. That's fine with me. Cheers and happy editing, K &oelig;rte F  a   { ταλκ }  22:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete Happy Power Trip
Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

I don't know what boosterism is. The references are what they are and they are all valid. I'm not trying to booster anything. If you don't like a specific reference, or whatever "boosterism" is please be courteous and just remove that one reference or componet without deleting all of my hard work. It took me over an hour to look up references and key everything in for you to go delete happy and remove it all with NO warning or basic common courtesy.

It appears you are on a power trip. If you want respect, then please be respectful to others.

I spend a lot of time updating this page and have added my own photos to make it a good meaningful page. I can just as easily delete all of my contributions and photos, too.

I'm not sure why you're creating conflict, but please stop and be courteous.

Mary De Shon Contributor to North Kansas City High School — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marydeshon (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-Free image on Sergio Franci Talk page
I understand about your removal of the image posted on this talk page. It was posted by an editor on the Live Talk channel after my inquiry about getting the image to post. Didn't realize at the time that I should have deleted it from the talk page. Thanks for your help. CatherineCathlec (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your request for undeletion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is User talk:Gb. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-Free image on Mistercontributer user page
Thanks for removing non-free image from my user page. I assume you had good intentions to keep me out of trouble. I was not aware of that policy. I will be more careful in the future regarding images I add to my user page. If you see any more issues on my user page please leave me a message on my talk page so I can resolve. Please do not edit my user page in the future per message posted at the top of my user page. Thanks again - Mistercontributer (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Valid rationale?
fails NFCC#8, no valid article-specific NFCC rationale Sorry to bother you. Please could you explain to me why the article-specific NFCC rationale supplied is not valid? If you could also explain what I need to do to make it valid, that would also be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's not consistent with WP:NFLIST, and in particular #8 in that section; the link to the bio article where the image where the image is properly used is considered sufficient. Second, saying that an image "greatly improves" the article isn't sufficient under WP:NFCC, which is more restrictive than "fair use" requirements; you need to show that it "significantly improves" a reader's understanding of the point it illustrates. Here, the reader can fully understand that Walsh held the office involved without seeing a picture of him. (This point reflects a strong consensus in practice; I don't think I've ever seen a nonfree image restored to such a list after community discussion.) I don't believe you can provide a valid NFC use rationale here -- although I wouldn't be surprised if you could figure out the (rough) date the photo was taken and show its copyright has expired. You might have a good shot at this, although it's not a sure thing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo
Why don't you delete the images from Wikipedia. We use them also for the pagr Enrico Berlinguer and Pietro Nenni. Nick.mon (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * replied on your talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

Thank you for the explanations. Nick.mon (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the start on the Joel daughter bio
Wow, just saw that you'd started to tackle that big pile of shh.... the children are sleeping! Thanks, I just got caught up in a fascinating debate about whether moules-frites is/are indeed Belgian, Talk:European_cuisine. BTW you owe me a new mouse as I scrolled all the way down to the bottom of your TP and the scroll wheel sawed my mouse in two!  Captain Screebo Parley! 17:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

fyi

 * Note: IronKnuckle, with whom I see you have had a few discussions, is now indef blocked.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)