User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 15

G5 CSD reversal
Hi. Not arguing with your decision, since clearly if they weren't banned when they created an article, then you are absolutely correct. But how would I know that in the future. What happened was that I had prodded another article by this same editor, and another editor G5'd it. Seeing that, I went to the other article this now banned editor had created, and did the same. Is there something I should be checking? Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you're dealing with a sockpuppetry case or a topic ban, if they created the article under the name they were blocked/banned under, they created it before the block/ban. Once they're blocked/banned, they can't create articles under that username. If you're not sure, check the page history to get the date/time the article was created. Then click the contribs link for the creator, which will show the date/time for the most recent entry in their block log. Usually that takes care of it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee Brown Coye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Arthur. 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) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod
I have removed the prod tag from Skow for Girlfriends Films, 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! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This IP is serially deprodding articles without explanation, and I've reverted, but not about to get into an edit war. What are your suggestions for handling this on a longer term basis?  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to file an edit warring notice on them, since they aren't providing any explanations, and refuse to discussion the allegation that they're the sock of a blocked/banned user. I also think it's time to place a formal block request at ANI. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello HW and SI. There have been at least two threads about this at ANI. Here WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive903 and here Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. On the first one most of the articles were taken to AFD but I haven't followed what went on with the second one. I suspect you are both aware of this but I thought I'd leave the links in case they will be of use with any reports that you start. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I put in my 2¢ worth, but having read the discussions, it really doesn't look like anything will be done.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

re 3RR report
You said:

"refuses to address the claim in any forum"

Sorry but you are mistaken. If you believe I am the same editor that was objecting to PRODs yesterday then I addressed the claim by responding to it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Appealing_a_block&diff=next&oldid=688777507. I see no need to continue responding to unfounded claims on other forums that suggest I am evading a block. I am not.

Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not addressing the claim, that's the evidence of it -- a virtual admission. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's not evidence. It's ridiculous that asking about possible unblock processes that protect the user's privacy (by not requiring them to use their email) is considered evidence of evasion or sockpuppetry. As I said in that linked reply, I have no account that is blocked. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you just showed up here a few days ago and immediately became concerned about this. Perhaps you have a bridge I might be interested in purchasing, or some funds in a Nigerian bank account I could share in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As I clearly said in the explanation, I am occasionally affected by blocks even though I am not the offending editor. So of course I was eventually going to ask about private unblocking processes. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Gee, did your roommate get you blocked again? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * No, their little brother did it.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"disruptive editing"
Please stop reverting my edits across various articles. Thank you. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Please stop disruptively editing Wikipedia to retaliate for what is likely your well-justified block or ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not blocked or banned. There is no evasion. I will not continue to argue this ridiculous point. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And, of course, no blocked/banned user would ever deny it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopping IP is clearly WP:POINT and has been reported. Widefox ; talk 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

deprod 2
I have removed the prod tag from Joe Simmons (actor), 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! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

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. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Abu Sayeed M Ahmed PhD
Don't get snippy. You only declined my Speedy on the page. No other speedy was placed on the page. The page was created with a speedy to begin with because the page keeps getting deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit War
Cut the BS - Leave the Kahlo painting alone. See the talk page here, thats been there for years. She is one of the most important 20th century artists making self-portraits. You should read a book...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your inept attempt at bullying, and your incivility, is noted. You make no attempt to justify inclusion of the image under our actual non-free use policy. The discussion you point to is simply your own assertion that an issue has been settled, when review of the actual discussions show that no agreement was reached. In any event, a 2007 discussion cannot establish that the use meets our current NFC/NFCC policy and guidelines, and a review of the file page history shows that multiple users have objected to its use in this article, while only you have supported it. Even in the 2007, while there clearly was consensus to include the image in articles centered on Kahlo and her work, there was no consensus to include it in other articles, particularly those without well-sourced commentary related to the specific topics of the articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

M G Leonard
Where is the assertion of notability? She's written a book which has yet to be published. Otherwise, my career stints at the Royal Opera House & with the NT make me about as notable.TheLongTone (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please learn what the criteria for speedy deletion are. Only an assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, is required to survive A7. Selling a book to a major trade publisher and having it definitely placed on its publication schedule is a sufficient assertion of significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A credible asserion of notability, I think. Anyway, looks like this bit of promotion is for the dumper.TheLongTone (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Kurt Holobaugh
Actually the close in 2013 specifically referred to re-creation after fighting three times for top tier organisation to meet WP:NMMA which the subject has yet to do.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the general principle rather than the specific example. Since the article now claims winning a notable title subsequent to the AFD, the db-repost was clearly inappropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A second tier title is not considered notable according to WP:NMMA but I see your point. Just means a second AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Football
Why did you delete in Cupa României seasons, the pictures of Steaua, because their previous name was CCA București and CSAC București ?? Can you upload the old emblem then?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The image I deleted was nonfree (under copyright), and could only be used to identify a team in an article where the team waas the article subject, as specified on the file page for the image. If the old emblem is a free image -- and it's probably not, since most team logos aren't -- I suppose you could substitute it in the articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kevinodonnell1976.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kevinodonnell1976.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=690790418 your edit] to Warp drive 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1931 novel Islands of Space.
 * Have you ever left a nice message foe anybody? Can you do nothing but find fault? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It girls
Hi Hullaballoo. The Cressida Bonas article doesn't really deserve the time, but I'm curious as to how to deal with the "widely referred to as" thing. She's clearly widely referred to as an "it girl".TelegraphMCPeopleHola But there likely aren't any sources that say "widely".

How about changing it to Bonas has been called an "It girl".? Bromley86 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islands of Space, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyperspace and But. 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) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Greater Rayalaseema
How to propose it. Talk:Greater Rayalaseema can also help. It is purely invented. ''G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes'' Will it be applicable?--Vin09 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just use a standard deletion process, like WP:PROD or WP:AFD. This is the sort of claim that requires an opportunity for discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, this should be interesting
Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Statement If you say anything about this here, please place comments under this heading. Yes, I know this isn't going to be a successful candidacy, but more of a Pyrrhic defeat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. I've never heard the phrase Pyrrhic defeat before.  :-)      But can one ask, what is the point of standing?  Are you an issues-candidate that wants to bring awareness of the issues up?  If so, what are the issues, as in specifically, what would you like the new crop of arbs to do/change/accomplish?  Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say there are a million more pleasant things to do with your time than answer ACE questions. But, I'm impressed with everyone who gives it a go! Liz  Read! Talk! 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry
Hi, I've emailed you (via Commons) on an election-related matter. Tony  (talk)  10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A reminder that if you wish to be included in the survey, we'll need to receive your response within 8–12 hours. Tony   (talk)  03:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See: User:Bobbybobbie/DJ Montay
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Reddogsix's deletion of DJ Montay. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

survey response withdrawn?
Hello, from your comment at the User_talk:Mike_V thread, I was under the impression that you did not wish your answers to be used? Or have you changed your mind, and decided to leave them in? Please see WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-18/Special_report which went live a short time ago, and also the thread at User_talk:NE_Ent concerning the broader matter. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AEL FC
Hello.. I am the author of the page AEL FC. Be sure that i perfectly know better than you about the club and the current photo confirms with copyright rights. Please respect my work and do not restore again and again or i will block you as many other users did recently. Thanx. DON'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING TO DO IN YOUR LIFE THAN DELETING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK?

Orphaned non-free image File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg ⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Syed Mahmood Quadri
You wrote that Syed Mahmood Quadri "just survived AfD". Well... there was not a single !vote at the AfD. As for all practical reasons discussion did not happen (AfD stands for "articles for discussion") and the article still satisfied CSD, I tagged it accordingly. Maybe AfD could have been kept open a little longer, until other editors commented. I now see that it was a mistake on my part to AfD the page in the first place instead of CSD'in it - I just wanted to be kind.  kashmiri TALK  18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think HW probably knows about the election... --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice: Speedy deletion Badrul Hisyam Manap
Yo have removed speedy deletion tags on this article, that was placed by different editors, TWICE, and you have done the same tactics, repeatedly, on other articles too. That's unacceptable by Wikipedia rules.

If you disagree with other editors, please explain your point in the articles' talk page; otherwise, it might be considered as an edit war on you part.

Also, some of your comments to other editors are not that great either. Keep in mind that everything in Wikipedia is recorded. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. MarkYabloko  17:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read WP:SPEEDY again. Any editor except the article creator can remove a speedy tag. For most speedy tags, including the one at issue here, a declined speedy should not be placed again; instead, standard deletion processes should be employed. And somebody like you, who just placed a phony warning on my page with no basis in fact, has no business complaining about statements by other editors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am really not impressed with you work or your attitude The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk). You are constantly pushing your POV with complete disregard and disrespect to other editors. You are ignoring talk pages and consensus from other editors, and you are constantly reverting everybody; you accept nothing but your own edits, and you are hounding editors with half-obscenities and disparaging remarks. You are in clear violation of Wikipedia WP:PERSONAL and WP:NPOV, which are especially concerning, since you were given unjustly reviewer rights. I am few strokes away from filling a formal complaint with the administrates, to revert your reviewer rights among other complains, and believe me, I already have a whole list of editors who would support my claims and who are extremely unhappy with you. If I hear one more nasty word out of your mouth, any disparaging remarks toward me on any any of the edits that I do, any more of your personal remarks like "silly", "hasty", "phony", or if you try to again to deny the obvious abuse, or try to intimidate me with your Big Bad Wolfowitz attitude, then that's will be it. THIS ABUSE MOST STOP NOW.  MarkYabloko '''  17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been editing substantively here for less than a month. It's evident your understanding of deletion policies and practices is grossly deficient. Earlier today, for example, you placed a vandalism tag on Dignity Test (since deleted over copyright issues), even though it clearly wasn't vandalism. You placed a PROD tag on Syed Mahmood Quadri, even though it plainly wasn't PROD-eligible, since it had just survived an AFD. Earlier this week, you placed a db-repost tag on Cybera even though it had never been through AFD. Your edit history shows a practice of targeting new editors' first efforts for deletion without giving them a decent opportunity to complete work on their first articles, and the term "hasty" is more than appropriate in that context. I am not the only experienced editor who has turned down your deletion requests, and you would do well to learn from the comments you are receiving, unwelcome as you may find them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Anya Major
WP:UULP doesn't exist. What did you mean to point to? I tried WP:BLP, but that has two numbers separated by a period. I don't care that the image is there or not, I just want to know why for future reference. DreamGuy (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the typo; the link is WP:NFC#6. The principle is that, to minimize the use of nonfree content, it's preferable to link to an article where the nonfree content is the central subject rather than reuse the nonfree content in multiple articles. Since we have a standalone content about the commercial, linked in the bio, the nonfree image shouldn't be repeated there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Ignorance fought. Thanks! DreamGuy (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Barry Dufour
Hi, I have a question. Not trying to pick a fight, just to understand. You removed the "BLP PROD" tag from Barry Dufour with the comment "article has sufficient referencing to defeat BLPPROD". But this article has no references at all, and it has never had any - at least not in the sense of anything that shows up in the Reflist. So I would be interested to understand what references your comment referred to.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quick answer before I fall asleep. BLPPROD "requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.) The article contained an external link, to the subject's university profile. The university may not be Oxbridge or Ivy calibre, but it's a reputable institution which can be counted on to vet its professors (and editing a scholarly book for Cambridge University Press also signals significant credentials). So I think the article was not only sufficiently sourced to defeat the BLPPROD, but to support a reasonable assertion of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - makes sense to me! And I learned something, so it's a good day.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Userbox:Music/Artist=Paloma Faith
Hi, Thanks for your input. Can you please explain how you know the image is non-free use? Thankyou. CandidLibraryEditors (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it's identified as a nonfree image on File:Can't Rely on You cover.png. More broadly, you need to establish that an image is free before placing i in userspace; if you don't know or can't tell, don't display it in userspace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do as you have advised next time. CandidLibraryEditors (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Fornari
Why did you removed the template? Don`t you see the link that I give? It is clearly a copyvio and the text is taken from the International dictionary of psychoanalysis. --Ilikeliljon (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I compared the article with the entry on Franco Fornari in the International dictionary of psychoanalysis, and although the article flow closely follows the encyclopaedia, it has been modified so much that it cannot be termed a copyvio. kashmiri  TALK  12:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kashmiri is pretty much on target. From WP:G12: For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Copyright problems. Please consult Copyright violations for other instructions. Looking at the history, if there is a copyvio, it happened three years ago, when the article was translated from the it-wiki version (if that article was merely a translation of the source cited in the speedy nom.) This isn't a simple enough determination to justify speedy deletion, especially since there's been nontrivial intervening editing since 2012. If you think this is a translation of a translation, which would probably be a copyvio, if the translations were close enough, you should follow the non-speedy process described in WP:G12. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

pls join me
...Talk:Military history of Canada -- Moxy (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Case amendment request
Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"why do editors put A7 on pages like this?"
So instead of either dropping me a message or just tagging G3, you decided to put a snarky remark in the edit summary? Yes, I made a mistake and it should have been a G3, no need to be uncivil about it -- samtar whisper 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try assuming good faith? I have seen similar bad tagging, over and over and over, with A7 stuck on flagrant attack pages and the most obvious of hoaxes. I hit about five of them in five minutes today, and I think this one was the worst. Wasn't this an article "about" somebody who was supposedly notable for walking on other planets? If you're tagging so rapidly you didn't notice that, you need to slow down. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Halime Sultan
This whole Story is a fiction, there is no any reliable source given that she was exist. There is no Valide (Queen Mother) who named Halime Sultan in the Ottoman Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That may well be so, but it's not blatant enough to justify speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of CSD tags and reasons given by you

 * Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, an article Kampfmaschine was created on 9 Dec 15 (Slovenian metal band formed in 2015) which was tagged for CSD by me. You removed the CSD tag here citing "remove speedy, article includes a credible claim of significance (formed by notable musician), a lower standard than notability". Did you check who that founding "notable musician" is? As per the article, the band was established in 2015 by Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski in Gimnazija Poljane. Following are some details for you;
 * Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski (1 Mar 1899 – 8 Mar 1972) was a German SS-Obergruppenführer (Army General) and not a musician. He died 43 years before the claimed band was formed.
 * Gimnazija Poljane is a grammar school in Ljubljana.
 * The article "Kampfmaschine" does not cite a single source.

Your contributions are appreciated and are welcome but please be cautious of your edits. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I happen to notice that your talkpage has multiple messages where several people have objected about removal of CSD and PROD. Just a friendly and unsolicited advice (on GF), slow down and be careful before you get reported by someone to admins. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  11:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You placed an inaccurate speedy on an article. The Kampfmaschine article included apparently plausible claims of notability, but you tagged it as A7. Given the information you provided here (but not before), you should have placed a G3 (vandalism/hoax) tag on the article, or (better) a PROD tag, since determining the article to be a hoax requires some checking. It's not my responsibility to determine whether any other reason for deletion exists when removing an inaccurate speedy tag. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I placed an inaccurate notice???? Are you serious? Apart from the ANI discussion involving you, there are multiple editors who are complaining about your CSD / PROD removal issues. It is very much YOUR responsibility to determine and find facts before you remove any tags from an article; make no mistakes with that. Did you even bother to check what the page and the claims were all about? I don't think so. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm serious, and rather than continuing to bitch about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you would be better advised to note that the uninvolved editors who responded at ANI found nothing inappropriate about my tag removals. Your own speedy tagging, however, is too often inappropriate; here, for example, you tagged a sportsman who participated in the US national championship in his sport, which is clearly an assertion of notability, not merely significance; even worse, you tagged the article four minutes after the creator began writing it, without affording them a decent opportunity to complete their work. At Luke Carlson: A Living Legend, you missed the point that the article was an obvious attack page, which should have been tagged that way to ensure rapid administrator action. You need to be more careful in your tagging. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Michael J. Yaremchuk, you may be blocked from editing. ''It's not the first time that you remove AfD. Please note that you are not allowed to do this and it is up to an admin to decide on validity. kashmiri  TALK  13:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Update: matter has been discussed at ANI and this notice is no longer needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prefers to leave it here for reference purposes. kashmiri TALK  17:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. kashmiri TALK  13:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Nairobi Sailcat
FYI Nairobi Sailcat is at AfD now... JMHamo (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you so goddamn insistent on WP:BITE-ing a new editor who made a good faith effort to write an article and got tag-slammed before he had decent chance to finish working on their first article? The ferality of new page patrollers who would rather collect scalps than actually improve Wikipedia absolutely disgusts me. In terms of complying with WP:BEFORE, what sources did you check to reach your conclusion, since you presented not one shred of reasoned analysis? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find significant coverage in reliable sources that's independent, I will of course withdraw my nomination... I could not find anything, so it's at AfD. JMHamo (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're acknowledging you didn't comply with WP:BEFORE, right? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop making assumptions about me that aren't true. The simple fact is Nairobi Sailcat is non-notable and is at AfD because of a lack of reliable sources. Basic stuff. JMHamo (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You haven't made a reasonable attempt to find them, and the article creator wasn't given a decent opportunity to work on the article. Period. You can shout and wave your hands all you want, but that's the bottom line. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI - Now deleted at AfD JMHamo (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. More editors were forced to waste their time on pointless discussion when outcome was predictable. Simply, WP:ARTICLEAGE is not a justification to keeping an article, contrary to what HW suggests. kashmiri  TALK  12:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree Kashmiri, but I've already been called a troll by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, so I doubt he will listen. Ah well... JMHamo (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * King Solomon's Ring (short story)
 * added links pointing to TSR and Novelette


 * The Snow Women
 * added a link pointing to Hugo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Gangsters (2017 film)
There is no evidence that this movie exists after googling. I think it's eligible for either G3 or A7. Thanks for replying. Ueutyi (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * G3 is fine (I prefer to use db-hoax, so it's clearer for the reviewing admin). But A7 is reserved for "real" subjects, and expressly excludes creative works. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting to join a debate for James Stunt
I'm requesting you to join this Afd discussion. Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -Khocon (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Kings in Darkness
Why, Hullabaloo, did you remove the four-line poem from the conclusion of the story? It is not an external poem, it is an integral part of the story, written by a character in the tale. it's a part of it and should remain there. Thanks. Robert Fraser 04:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's quoted, therefore nonfree, and isn't essential to understand the plot summary. If it were just prose I might not have flagged it, but the standards for poetry (like song lyrics) are stricter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Calumet National Bank Building
You saved another article of that user, can you see if you could salvage this mess? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Orinda Aquatics
I declined your speedy deletion request on Orinda Aquatics and I essentially nuked all edits to that article made in December. The article has existed since March 2007 and the negative content was only added in December. In the future, before tagging for CSD G10, make sure that the article is actually a newly created article. For existing articles, the negative content should simply be reverted. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Aria Giovanni
Can you please tell me why you restored the page without the informations I added with sources? Thanks. --Doctor01~itwiki (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Because, as I rather plainly stated in the edit summary, IMDB does not meet the standards for reliable sources as prescribed in WP:BLP, at least for biographical claims. There is an established consensus on this point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)
I was wondering if you could reconsider your decline of the speedy nomination on S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). You said, "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion", but the two sources (Cricinfo and Cricket Archive) have almost identical information. Moreover, I am certain that every regular editor of cricket pages is familiar with both these sources, and the deletion discussion was almost certainly conducted on the basis of checking both sources. (I know I did.) Moreover, the deletion arguments included "Google search only brings up trivial statistics pages", so it is clear that both sources were familiar with at least some (and probably all) editors. It strikes me as bad practice to allow the re-creation articles deleted at AfD merely because a trivial reference has been added. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an attempt to twist a scenario in order to make a WP:POINT which is quite invalid. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive are independent of each other and are not always in accord. Their agreement about Perera is verification of each other's content. They are both reputable sources widely used on WP by CRIC project members. The original "one-line" stub about Perera did not contain inline citations and did not mention ESPNcricinfo at all while CricketArchive was merely included in the external links section. As such, it was arguably fair enough that it was deleted because notability was not properly established and an additional constraint arose in the AfD because no one thought to mention WP:NCRIC. The new version of Perera uses inline citations and provides extra information including linkages for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with Sri Lankan cricket. To say that the two sources are "trivial" is ludicrous. They are substantial sources. Your decision to refuse the speedy deletion was the correct one, especially as a significant new source confirms the information provided by the significant "old" source. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 21:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack makes the point I would have made, perhaps more clearly han I might. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Emma Watson
I have your  to Emma Watson. My reasons: "college students dating classmates" usually are not encyclopedic—except when one's an actress of international acclaim and the other accompanies her to a major, highly publicized entertainment event. Her romance—and, more specifically, her breakup—with a notable athlete was widely covered; Watson herself addressed the inaccuracies of the article published by People, a reputable source that, as do they all, got something wrong. Therefore, in my view, this is not gossip-mongering, and certainly is not insignificant. Cheers! — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Johnston McCulley
 * added a link pointing to Guy Williams


 * Sshhh ...
 * added a link pointing to George Barr

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Czolgolz/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients
This was one of my favorite articles that was deleted, and I'm just trying to preserve it. How do I make this right? Czolgolz (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the standard process is to either ask the deleting admin to userfy a copy for you or to place a request for userfication at WP:REFUND. Standard licensing requirements mean that the prior edit history must be preserved, so a simple cut-and-paste isn't allowed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now gone. Tell me, sir, do you create anything on Wikipedia, or simply destroy? Do you edit to spread knowledge, or are you merely a bureaucrat? Czolgolz (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that I told you, above, how to handle the matter properly, in a very simple way, and you ignored the advice, you really have no business complaining. Why aren't you interested in complying with Wikipedia's straightforward copyright/licensing requirements? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Jean Isherwood
I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while so this has just come to my attention. I notice that you deleted several images by that artist, which were being used by agreement with the artist' heir and executor, Jacqueline Dabron. The Japonica indicates the artist's great skill as a still life painter. The book cover relates directly to her last major project. An Illustration by Isherwood appears on the cover.

I would like the pictures restored.

Amandajm (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"By arrangement with" and similar permissions which provide for Wikipedia-only use, or are otherwise limited, aren't acceptable. Please review WP:NFC and WP:NFCC. Unless the artist's representatives are willing to provide a CC-license allowing for both commercial reuse and modification, which likely wouldn't be prudent for them to do, standard NFCC limits preclude use of the array of images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not speedy?
Hello.

Why was it not speedy?

Regards.

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Because there's no indication this is noncontroversial. Try opening a discussion on the article talk page first. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you'd cared to look in the target article or the Baron Carrington article, you would have seen that this is uncontroversial. The last name is spelled with one 'r', and the title with two. Maybe the name Peter Carington, 6th Baron Carrington rings a bell?
 * But allright, I'll make it an RM instaed.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is non-controversial. Reversing redirects is done on a routine basis and does not require lengthy discussions, except in rare cases. Undoing your speedy removal. kashmiri  TALK  18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Arguing about whether something is noncontroversial is pretty much the paradigm of a self-defeating argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * That could of course be said, but if the argument that says it's controversial is founded on a mistake, then it's still uncontroversial. However, both of you, let the RM run its course. No need for a silly edit-war on a redirect. Big Bad W, if you object, do so in the RM discussion.
 * HandsomeFella (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's uncontroversial for editors knowledgeable of the subject, like or . Big Bad Wolfowitz seems only set on removing speedy nominations added by knowledgeable editors, often without having even faint understanding of the topics (abundant evidence on this page) - thus forcing many people to waste their time at AfD. Only the last week has seen several of his/her reverted speedies finally deleted after non-controversial AfD procedure. Sure it is WP:DISRUPTIVE apart from disparaging towards fellow editors who make decision on tagging, but what can you do?  kashmiri  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  23:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest we all drop it, and let the RM run its course. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried to let things drop, but kashmiri has been on a weird little wikijihad even since I declined a few of his speedies, most conspicuously his A7 nomination of a professor at Harvard Medical School, which began with improperly replacing the declined speedy , placing a false accusation that I was removing speedy tags from articles I had created on my talk page , filing a spurious and quickly rejected ANI complaint , filing an AFD that was soundly and unanimously rejected , and committing a WP:OUTING violation against a contributor to the article. And over the last week or so, he's been jumping into, and trying to inflame, other discussions/disputes I've been involved with. Like this one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

China Babu
You are correct that was only blocked recently, well after China Babu was created; but the block was for socking, and the sock-master is a different account, blocked well before. See here. Therefore, Rajeshbieee is evading a block, and all their creations are G5 eligible. I do not intend tagging them all, but I am tagging those decidedly not worth rescuing, per discussion at INB. Could you please self-revert this? Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction; they were indeed blocked much before the current creations, but their indefinite block was only this year. Considering that an admin asked folks to do the tagging, you can probably see why I made that mistake, not to mention that another admin accepted the same tag for a different creation by the same user, Vinod Kumar (VK). In any case, since replacing the tag would now be inappropriate on my part, I'm prodding both the articles on which you reverted me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right in that it's a really messy situation. I've followed up at ANI. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
 CatcherStorm  talk   03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Carla Maria Puccini
Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I, in my steward's and meta's checkuser's capacity, confirm that any substantial contributions on the page (which was created under a different name in order to "fool" my watchlist) has been made by BDA. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Man Who Awoke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lawrence Manning. 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) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Warning
Hey Mr. Why are you continuously wasting your time after my userboxes? You are not gonna decide what I'm gonna keep or delete in my userbox. You simply mind your own business and stop editing or reverting any edits on my userboxes. &mdash; Swastik Chakraborty (User talk)  12:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you persist in adding nonfree images to userboxes, templates, or other pages where they are not allowed under WP:NFCC#9, you are likely to have your editing privileges suspended. Posting phony warnings on user talk pages only increases the likelihood that you will be sanctioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)