User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 10

Deaxuma
Surely the pornstar Deauxma being nominated MILF on the year twice in two seperate occasions make her notable within WP:PORNDwanyewest (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, and consensus has run the same way for quite some time. While nominations for the top-level awards may be associated with coverage satisfying the GNG (which is the real standard), downlevel, specialized awards/nominations just don't do that. The outlandish number of nominees in so many categories -- AVN is now up to 15-20! -- makes it very hard to take them as serious indicators of significance. Morbidthoughts has made strong arguments in PORNBIO discussions against having nominations count toward notability at all, and I'm increasingly prone to agree with them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Iman Crosson
Is it just me, or does this and most of the other "RCraig09" articles have the same problem with promotional fluff and link overload? I was about to AfD this article, but perhaps it should be drastically reduced. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

QUERY
hello, i saw that u deleted the image from my user page. although i do not seem something wrong with the use of Mumbai university image in my userpage, as i had studied from there, i m proud of it. BUT ITS OK IF U HAVE DELETED IT CITING REASON.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME U SHOULD TELL ME OR PROVIDE ME WITH SOME OTHER IMAGE WHICH I CAN USE OR TELL ME HOW I CAN USE THAT IMAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arja36 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz trying to threaten me
Stay away from my page, okay. And don't ever threaten me again. I'm getting the Ricky Sinz page reinstated because this lie about his real name is going to stop. DKrazy (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Fred Armisen. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.I've performed each and every task required of me by the reverting editors, be it you or the other one. Everything is explained on my talk page and the article talk page. I've been more than cooperative, and you're being tendentious. You are as guilty of this edit war as I am. I've restored the pre-dispute version, per WP:BRD, so let's just continue like the civil editors we're supposed to be, OK? Thank you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Nonsense. You've reverted 4 times in 12 hours and restored your preferred version over the opposition of multiple editors. 3RR report in process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/XBIZ Award, etc...

 * Look, I don't know what your deal is, but you need to understand some things. Aside from this being the same kind of comment you always seem to make about me, well, two things:
 * 1) Judging by this entire talk page, you are the last person who should be warning anyone about anything, and
 * 2) How can I be personalizing the article if I'm not the one who created it?
 * But while we're on the latter topic, if I'm personalizing anything, it's the fact that whenever another user (or users) happen to share the same point of view that I have, one would think that you would go after all of them; why do you always just come after me? And the reason some of the pornography-related articles I created in the past were deleted is because back then it wasn't clear that many of the users that !voted "delete" just didn't like porn (if you think I'm wrong, you'll notice that the people I think are guilty of this never deny it). This explains why some of said articles have been reinstated with the respective deleting admin's blessings (i.e. Capri Anderson and Darla Crane, although I didn't create the latter the first time). As to why you have been given so many passes boggles my mind, but at any rate, you do not get to bully your way through Wikipedia.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to Mini-RfC
Thanks for your comments on the Lisa Lavie AfD. I'm asking various editors for constructive comments or explanations on my talk page: User talk:RCraig09. Thanks, from RCraig09 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for some of your uploads
Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:DSTNTNVRS19XX.jpg
 * File:PiratesAst53.jpg

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 02:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Deprodded
I removed your prod of Baby Pozzi and added a couple more of reliable sources. She surely fails PORNBIO and she surely became notable thanks to her sister, but she eventually had an independent career and received bunch of significant coverage in reliable sources (major Italian newspapers and magazines, books, journals) and such coverage covers her own life and her own career. Feel free to nominate the article via AfD if you are not convinced. Cavarrone (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Filipacchi Controversy
I'm also trying to keep the Filipacchi entry from being vandalized. I've let Qworty know on his/her own talk page that this kind of edit is, yes, contemptible. He/she removed comparisons to various authors, on the grounds that they were unsubstantiated - and it took me no time at all to find, for instance, a Boston Globe review comparing the novelist to Muriel Spark. I don't have time, but you might want to look into the other authors she was said to have been compared to (which Qworty erased). Be prepared to be dismissed as a meat or sock puppet. The fact is that you don't have to be a thug hired by the NY Times or Filipacchi to want Wikipedia's response to this tempest to stay professional. This isn't just about Qworty, either: there seems to be a general circling of the wagons here, in response to the op ed. NaymanNoland (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Qworty
Regardless of your feelings, your edit summary is somewhat over the top. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 06:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think so. If you read Qworty's comments on their own talk page yesterday, filled with personal and professional vilification of Filipacchi and profane insults of the Times, its writers, and its management, it's hard not to reach evcen more disturbing conclusions. This is not the kind of behavior that has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mayor of Bristol
Hi, I have reverted your removal of the coat of arms as a FUR has now been provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that I removed a personal attack made on you here. It is probably the kind of disgruntled stuff that goes on all the time but I did want you to know about it in case it is part of some larger problem that I an not aware of. Please feel free to remove this if you wish. Cheers and happy editing (whenever it has a chance to happen) :-) MarnetteD | Talk 00:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Badpuppy
I have removed the prod tag from Badpuppy, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggpur (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Denise Masino
Now, I know that you're a bot and not a real person but anyway, you just can't remove sourced edits just because they are novel or something that doesn't otherwise fit your taste. Behemoth (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Francois Papillon
Greetings! I didn't create the article that currently sits at this title. I created a redirect to the actress with whom this non-notable person is connected, and would propose boldly reverting to that redirect. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. As you participated in the related deletion discussion, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography you might be interested in. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edit
Regarding this edit;

As helpful as the edit summary "ad nauseum" is, I was wondering if I might get a slightly more in-depth explanation. You notice how in my edit summary I pointed to an exact quote in a relevant policy. Any chance you could point to some policy/discussion that is the basis for your edit?

Thanks, NickCT (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should I be banned for adding people to Category:American female pornographic film actors?
Why are you trying to attack me for adding people to Category:American female pornographic film actors? First off, how is that now how we should categorize someone where the opening line is "[name redacted per BLP] (born June 8, 1958) is an American singer and pornographic actress." Secondly, that category was taken to a CfD, and I was actually one of the people in favor of merging it out of existence, but it was kept. So why am I now attacked for it.?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I now see that the lead was incorrect. However the above I gave you was what the lead said at the time I recategorized the article.  Leads follow articles.  It is not a BLP violation to put people in categorizes that the text of the article supports.  It is not my fault that the article's lead was incorrect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are utterly and completely wrong here. That claim was completely unsourced at the point you saw it. It was an obvious BLP violation. An editor who comes across an obvious BLP violation should summarily remove it. It should be blindingly obvious that repeating and reinforcing an obvious BLP violation is never, never, never appropriate. 02:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim was in the lead. Claims in the lead are almost never sourced.  It not having a source appearing in the lead was not a reason to suspect it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you were wrong. The claim is sourced from the films she was in. This can be debated whether or not soft-core porn = porn actress, but that's really a discussion for a different venue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Qworty
Hi there. You've been in discussions on my talk page regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: SNL Cast
Ok that sounds fine to me it probably will be confirmed in the next few days or so. Koala15 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. neo (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how free equivalent can be created
Hello. You recently Robert Williams North Carolina.jpg from Robert Williams (American politician) stating that "free equivalent can be created." Please explain to me how a free equivalent could be created. If you look at the use rationale for the file, you will see only about 8% of the total mural is depicted and no free equivalent is known. Eric Cable |  Talk  14:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a relatively contemporary painting. Anyone can paint or draw an alternative and license it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What? That's ridiculous. You're a troll. Eric Cable  |  Talk  16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there are a lot of useful hostoric images in that mural so I am going to contact the owner of the mural (The Grand Lodge of North Carolina) to submit a Declaration of consent for all enquiries for the whole thing. Eric Cable |  Talk  14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Scarlett
Kudos for a very apt edit and edit-summary at Scarlett Johansson. And I've just removed the paragraph from Tobey Maguire that the IP cited, for the same reason, with the edit summary " None of this is even remotely encyclopedic. He likes pickup basketball? Are we going to give his favorite food and favorite color? Fan-page trivia." If you feel like keeping an eye there as well, it couldn't hurt. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for your interpolated comment (@that youngest-ever B'way producer/playwright stuff). Shearonink (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Simply because I don't want to keep thinking i've annoyed a good faith contributor
No hard feelings over my mistake? Not reading the whole thing properly before I jump in with a comment is one of my worst habits, it's an off-wiki problem as well so yeah. We cool?

Also, i've noticed you have one heck of a Talk PAge which really slows down someone trying to post. Could you please get yourself an archive setup? For the sake of others trying to post here? MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 12:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Blatant and biased vandalism - George North & Becky James
Can you please stop vandalising the pages George North & Becky James. Your edit summaries for both edits are "No current source" - yet there are supporting references (inclduing a interview with James) from the BBC Sport (February 2012), Daily Telegraph (February 2012) and South Wales Echo (23 February 2013). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Dre
I don't understand why you deleted my edit, which mentioned the interview by Cli-N-Tel. I think that a lot of readers would be interested to read this information. You say that it was an "unencylopedic tangent". First, I don't see how it's a tangent. It's on the same subject. Second, I'm not sure what the standards are for being "encyclopedic" in an article about Dr. Dre. Most encyclopedias don't contain this sort of article. Wikipedia does, and the information that I added is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Epa101 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The General Zapped an Angel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Morrow (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) 11:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Kurt Vonnegut's Art Career
Dear Mr. Wolfowitz,

I have started a discussion at Talk:Kurt Vonnegut about the relevance and sourcing of material on his art career. I think that the subject is important and should be discussed so that different opinions may be heard. In future, would you please allow for a proper discussion before deleting content? Chicago57th (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi HW. Hope things are well. Could you please elaborate on "there was a plausible argument of involvement, although a few years distant"? I'm racking my brains to figure out what sort of involvement I had with Caldor Calton in the distant past and nothing springs to mind. (If this was mere rhetoric, then that's fine.) Thanks!
 * Statements like these in a prior discussion of Calton's behavior: . There are enough similarities in the matters at issue to make plausible the argument that your defense of Calton, and opposition to sanctions in the earlier case should have prevented you from lifting sanctions in the recent case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A bit delusional of a stretch to raise a couple of comments in an ANI discussion to the level of an argument of involvement, even an implausible one. But, each to his own I suppose. Enjoy your snark hunting. --regentspark (comment) 01:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Gossip Monger
Hi WF

A few hours ago I made an edit in Salman Khan's page in the Personal Life section. It was about his alleged relationship with (I forgot her name). That piece of info was provided with a reputed source (India Today or TOI) but you undid it. Now you would say that it was an 'allegation' but as a matter of fact allegations play a pivotal role in a celebrity's life. Any help regarding the matter will be appreciated.

Here's the link - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Salman-Khan-spotted-with-his-ladylove/articleshow/20814568.cms

Regards Sohambanerjee1998 talk  15:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Under WP:BLP, a policy implementing a directive from the Wikimedia Foundation, such poorly sourced and/or speculative content about the personal lives may not be included in a Wikipedia biography. That article is a nearly perfect example of an unacceptable source under the policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562241675 your edit] to Trent Ford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Park]], Slap Her... She's French, released in the U.S. as She Gets What She Wants and September Dawn''.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=562284398 your edit] to Trent Ford may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Park]], Slap Her... She's French, released in the U.S. as She Gets What She Wants and September Dawn''. He also portrayed Zoey Bartlet's French boyfriend in the fourth

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
 * That's rich. You've reverted 4 times to add back the inaccurate and clearly discredited report that April Lavigne got married yesterday, and now you're complaining that I was one of the group of editors (none of whom broke 3RR) who removed it. Enjoy the break from editing that the WP:BOOMERANG is likely to bring you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

AN/I Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Campaign By Hullaballoo Wolfowitz To Delete Content. Thank you. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Factor-ies (talk) 07:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Playmate Elsa Sorensen
Re. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1956#September

Hi HW,

Please note that I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm merely trying to understand how this works.

I believe the statement: "Elsa Sorensen is officially believed to be the first Playmate who was not from the United States" to be 100% correct and verifiable as per the ref: Playboy.com: Elsa Sorensen. I don't really see how my statement could be regarded as speculative when it's a verbatim quote from the publisher's official stance on the matter.

Whether this is a significant entry or not can certainly be debated (as can any entry, ever, obviously). To me this represents an interesting historic fact, while you might consider it useless trivia.

Any rules of thumb as to whether this should be considered "significant" or not? Medjeti (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Please, think of the the newbies!

Bearian (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC) 

August 2006
Remember how you felt when you saw this edit, back in 2006 ? – S. Rich (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if Margo is a sock that question is too complicated for me to figure out. Here I'm suggesting that a welcome message (which entails AGF) is the way to start off with any new editor. If socking is an issue, then it can be raised. Keep up the good work (and archive this talk page)! Time for fireworks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Response on AN/I Discussion
Dear Mr. Wolfowitz,

I have posted a response to your latest comment on the AN/I Board.

Thanks Factor-ies (talk) 09:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hullaballoo, I agree that enuf iz enuf, indeed 2much already! Nothing is going to come of this ANI, so I suggest letting it die. 36 hours is all it takes for Miszabot to do the magic and make it disappear. – S. Rich (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wolfowitz,

I have posted one last comment on the Board Thanks, Factor-ies (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nude Marilyn
The discussion about the nude image of Marilyn Monroe at Playboy has been reopened after I added this whole paragraph describing its significance. I'm notifying everyone to see whether we can build a consensus deciding how to best portray that image within the project. Diego (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You are in violation of WP:NPA with this edit ...Modernist (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Re this: - I'm just telling it the way it is pal. Next time take it to talk...Modernist (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring
You currently have 3 reverts!

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. ...Modernist (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt
I am in a discussion with an editor on the Linda Ronstadt talk page. The editor added trivial content which I removed and the editor would like it added back. The editor requested a "mutual" view (perhaps neutral view?) to resolve the issue. Naturally, I thought of you and said so on the talk page. Perhaps a bit (or a lot) presumptuous on my part, I hope you do not mind. Please have a look. Thanks and cheers. Sandcherry (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently no good deed goes unpunished. Thanks for the help. Sandcherry (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you a stalker? Removed all the Howard Stern stuff from Shock Jock when it had sources and the whole Linda debacle.
You are a strange man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Krull
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You're an experienced enough editor to know better. Your edits are in dispute--for good reason--and instead of simply reverting to the version you desire, you need to explain your edits and your rationale in discussion on the talk page and gain consensus from other editors to support your changes. I've advised you multiple times to take it to the talk page. I am guessing the only reason you haven't done so is because you're aware that your take on the film and its reception is unlikely to garner much in the way of support.

As far as the edits go, your argument that "postmillennial internet postings cannot document the initial reception of this 1983 film" is not particularly supported by WP policy. Despite your claims to the contrary, Rotten Tomatoes includes contemporaneous reviews (as anyone who uses it knows), and all of those reviews are "mixed to negative" in their evaluation of the film. Including the decidedly mixed Maslin review, from which your disputed edits cherrypick some positive quotations and ignore the negative comments. In addition to this, the later, "postmillenial" DVD reviews tend to reference the fact that the film was a massive failure upon release, providing us with the necessary secondary source support for this claim. I even added the review by John Kenneth Muir, which also supports this interpretation.

I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I'm really puzzled by what your ultimate intention is, given that Krull is infamous for having been a complete bomb on release. If you're really trying to challenge that Krull was a critical failure upon release, you need to come up with sources, in both strength and number, that support that challenge but also disprove the case made by the current sources. The sources currently provided are sufficient in number and nature to support the (factual) claim that it received mixed to negative reviews, regardless of your personal acceptance of, or feelings about, them. Grandpallama (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Barbra Streisand photos discussion
I am restoring a photo you removed from the Barbra Streisand article with a rationale explained on the article's talk page. --Light show (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Midsumtemp.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Midsumtemp.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 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) 06:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

Why did you revert my edits on Carol Campbell (actress)? Especially with the comma after the reading pause (In 2007,) and the comma in the first sentence?

thanks, Robert (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCLEANUP

 * I don't recall reading a guideline anywhere that is against expanding a shortcut for an essay. You need to learn how to talk to people for once.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Nudity in film
You kept removing the Nudity of children section from this article. But you haven't attempted that anymore. Are you okay with it now? What are all of your concerns with it? 72.216.11.75 (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I discussion
Note that there is a discussion at AN/I on a matter with which you have previously been involved: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Regards, Andreas JN 466 01:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Tengku Fadilah Tengku Kamalden.
As you obviously realised, I deleted as promotional rather than notability. I admit I didn't see your edit, and I've restored because you disagree with my assessment and you don't have a COI. I've moved the page to Tengku Fadilah Tengku Kamalden per MoS, and added to my watchlist. If a source is added, it my be worth seeing if there is a copyright issue, it looks a bit cut-and-paste to me. Anyway, AGF for now  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  19:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

Porn!
So whas the deal, bro? Why are you tirelessly campaigning to have articles on porn chicks deleted whenever possible? Why all the hate? And you should seriously think about archiving your shit too. I am on dial up with a 14.4k modem and this page takes too long to load. Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your undoing of my withdrawal
I'm not sure you actually can compel me to un-withdraw my request at ANI for a topic ban. As I said, it seems like ANI might not be the best venue, so I'm going to file an RFC/U, where the format better allows me to explain how particular edits added total fabrications with reference to sources, etc. If you are interested in continuing the discussion, there must be some way of doing so without requiring me to keep defending something I'm no longer proposing in that venue. Is there some sort of non-close note that can be added at the top? Or perhaps a new thread? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 12:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3
Please see WP:AN3. You may respond there. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Fiona Shaw
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Fiona Shaw.

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 edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You 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.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action. Tanbircdq (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kagney Linn Karter
I restored my edit to the article about her real name. To avoid a 3RR, I made a post on the talk page about the policy that supports it. --w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 04:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Scarlett Johansson
If it's not too much trouble, could you please contribute your opinion to the last section of Talk:Scarlett Johansson about Esquire magazine. Thank you. Dismas |(talk) 01:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What is your ulterior motivation for removing topical and sourced infromation on the relationship between Oxfam/Johansson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignoranceisnotbliss19 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock
Hi Hullaballo. I wrote that Sandra is often considered to be the biggest female star and you said it is only opinion. I feel the need to explain why I wrote that. Well, I think it is simple, but you may disagree. You will never find an official information that Bette Davis and Katherine Hepburn were the biggest stars of 40s and 50s, or Audrey and Merylin the biggest of late 50s and 60s, or Fonda and MacLaine of 70s, or Meryl Streep of 80s. But still in many articles and histories of film they will be referred as the most stellar. It is unofficial fact that Julia Roberts, with all those blockbusters (Pretty Woman, Nothing Hill, My Best Friend's Wedding, Runaway Bride) was the biggest box office draw of 90s, and that Angelina, with Tomb Rider, Mr. and Mrs. Smith and all the mess with Pitt-Aniston was the most popular actress of 00s. When we talk or read about today's most prominent Hollywood actresses, or, lets say: the most bankable, the best paid, the most popular, Sandra Bullock pops out on the top spot. I didn't say she is officially declared but often considered to be. I hope you got the point in spite of my bad English. Greetings! --BetteDavis4ever (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unofficial facts" don't belong in BLPs. Period. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Woody Allen - Kup.JPG review
Would you mind reviewing changes to this file to cover your concerns? If there are no further issues, maybe you can remove the tag before it gets deleted regardless. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Playboy Wiki links
You have made what I consider to be useful and prudent edits in the Playmate Lists, so I wonder if you might want to weigh in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Playboy_Wiki

You removed external links to Playboy Blog, which I too know to be a for-profit affiliate and not a site of Playboy proper. At the same time, you left in place links for Playboy Wiki, which *is* directly related to other Playboy sites. The Playboy Wiki links are now under attack. I hope, but don't assume that you would support leaving PB Wiki links in place. Either way, I think your perspective would be helpful to the discussion at the RS/N. Wikilister (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Help
Could you please help in intervening in the vandalism and trolling of IP adress 86.133.52.20 in Katia Elizarova's page. The user is fluffing the article and putting additional material from gossip and speculations done by the tabloids. Please help me in ammending it as I am new to wiki.

Sandra Bullock‎‎
Good evening, Just to let you know that I referred to you here. Cheers! — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 21:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fake admin claims to revert WP:RS content - nice one! He is not an admin → . And even if he was - there are WP policies to follow! --IIIraute (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Jessie Lee
Hello HW, I reverted your edits to Jessie Lee for several reasons: Give me a valid reason for leaving the redirect to School District 36 Surrey and I'll move the article back to Jessie Lee (pornographic actress). Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. None of the articles which linked to Jessie Lee when I first created the article or the ones which link to it now are related to the elementary school.
 * 2. If anyone needs to link an article to the elementary school they can use Jessie Lee Elementary School instead, it's more appropriate for an encyclopedia anyways.
 * 3. A Google search for Jessie Lee yields results for the pornographic actress, not the elementary school.

Alice Goodwin
Hello Hullaballo, you mentioned "gross RS/BUndid revision 588117518 by Mightylorddk" and removed the portion of article i've added. Well i added that paragraph with reference and you cant argue that an actress' wiki cant have her body measurement or body modification update. So please kindly dont revert anything without reading the full history, ref and added portion. You not only removed my added portion, also you've removed her personal life's portion too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightylorddk (talk • contribs) 22:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This would have been mighty convincing if you signed your name, silly boy. -- Mets fre ak  (Hello!)| 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment in archived discussion
This comment, even before fixing the typo, is not needed. He withdrew the proposal (and gave me credit for prompting the second thoughts). Adding another "off-topic" comment about a proposal which only served to take the initial discussion further off-topic just doesn't make sense to me. I wish you would remove it. (And then give me credit for yet another brilliant suggestion.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)



Srich32977 has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chocolately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I think User:Gamaliel wants you to have some chocolate. – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Removal of redlinks
Of all the articles to edit, and of all the articles which result in a revert, this one take the cake: List of Asian pornographic actors. I'd hope that WP:WTAF would be a motivator to remove all the redlinks. But that did not happen in this case. One redlink was removed and one redlink was added. My gosh! (This message is being posted on both user talk pages.)  – S. Rich (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Kristina and Karissa Shannon
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kristina and Karissa Shannon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Thar's right, you edit, but editors who disagree with you edit war. Don't you have anything better to do than parrot Playboy fancruft? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is not the first time that you've been warned about this. I also noticed that you were warned by an Admin that I know to be particularly steadfast about this kind of infraction. It's not my preference to use formal processes in matters like this, I prefer to talk it out. I've started a discussion on the article Talk page. I invite you to join in or, if nothing else, withdraw from your unconstructive reverts. Furthermore, I don't care as to what your personal opinion is of Playboy magazine (you're entitled to it regardless), but I do ask you to not be a part of this problem. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"cults"
I suspect one editor is unaware of the many ArbCom decisions concerning "cults" and "new religious movements" - and that his position would result in a great many religious movements being included in his "definition" . Collect (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)