User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This user may have left Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has not edited Wikipedia since September 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

I was reviewing album articles and found four album covers on Giant Killers (EP). Just wanted to draw your attention to this page. Mburrell (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed the alternative covers, since the use rational for each says that the cover will "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question"; that is plainly not the case, and no alternative rationale has been provided. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine, I suppose, but may I make a suggestion, since you appear to take it upon yourself to hunt down unfree imagery: In cases where, as you yourself argue, the image is "replaceable by text", why not provide this text at the time you remove the image? Or at the very least transfer the image caption into the article prose instead of simply blanking it alongside the image? I am asking because sometimes I invest considerable effort into researching the origin and content of images, and cite them, with literature etc., in the image description. If the image is deleted for some reason, this research is also lost from view.

In short, when deleting images, for good reason im most cases I am sure, please make sure that no encyclopedic information is lost by the blanking of the image description page. --dab (𒁳) 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the lengthy quote already in the article was sufficient, and felt that the text highlighted by the caption really added nothing substantial to the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back when Margo Feiden wasn't yet an article, you remarked on the AfC that

The NYTimes reported on March 11, 1961 that a teenage theater troupe led by Feiden was trying to raise $600 to stage its production of "Peter Pan" in an Off-Broadway house. Not exactly Broadway money, even for 1961. (The theatre involved apparently allowed its premises to be used for children/youth theater productions as Sunday matinees.)

If you could dig up that reference or point me in the right direction I would appreciate eversomuch. Also, I seem to remember at least one reviewer said that the cast was made up of High School for the Performing Arts students?...if you have any idea where I could find a ref for that statement that would be *awesome*. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, is Feiden back again? She's so shamelessly self-promotional you'd think she was part of the Trump or Kardashian families. Here's the link

https://www.nytimes.com/1961/03/11/archives/teenage-troupe-trying-peter-pan-for-off-broadway.html?searchResultPosition=1

The article title, "Teen-Age Troupe Trying 'Peter Pan' For Off Broadway", pretty much says almost all we need to know; the article also reports that the cost of staging the production would be $600 -- which, even in 1961, couldn't possibly stage a professional production in Manhattan. But, hey, if you read the court decisions in the fights between Feiden and Al Hirschfeld/the Hirschfeld estate, you'd see that her reputation for veracity . . . The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to be behind a paywall - all I can see is a single paragraph:

A troupe of hopefuls has been rehearsing scenes from "Peter Pan" in basements in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. The most hopeful of all the members of the group, the Fine Arts Theatre Workshop, is its director, Miss Margo Eden.

Are there more details? Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Pretty sure that File:Margo Feiden.jpg is a copyvio and have tagged it as such. As for possible COI issues, if there's a connection between Factor-ies and Margo Feiden (apparently there is per Factor-ies user page), then add {{COI edit notice}} and {{Connected contributor}} to the article's talk page and advise them not to directly edit the article except per WP:COIADVICE. If they have any problems with doing this, then bring it up for discussion at WP:COIN. If there's a strong suspicion that Factor-ies is Feiden herself (apparently there are concerns about this per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Margo Feiden Galleries), then advise "her" about WP:BLPCOMPLAIN. If "she" still is not willing to abide by relevant policies and guidelines, then maybe this should be discussed as ANI. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Feiden is very open about the fact that she & Factor-ies are one and the same. The account is signing its posts here on WP (including on my user talk) as "Margo Feiden". Shearonink (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s the case, then a {{Connected contributor}} template should be added to the BLP article’s talk page as well as any others directly related to her. A {{uw-coi}} template could be added to her user talk page as well, but a more personal note might work better if you’ve been previously engaging her on various talk pages. Basically, she should be following WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and avoid directly editing the article. If she’s unwilling to do that, then she’s going to eventually end up at WP:ANI for WP:NOTHERE.

In addition, if she’s been always signing as Feiden, then she should be made aware of WP:REALNAME. If she emails WP:Contact OTRS and has OTRS verify her identity per {{OTRS verified}}, others will know for sure (or at least as best as possible) that she’s not just someone claiming to be Feiden; otherwise, she may be risking being WP:SOFTBLOCKED for impersonation. WP:BLP applies to all Wikipedia pages and all living persons; so, claiming to be a specific identifiable person in your posts when you really aren’t (particularly someone with a Wikipedia article written about them) seems just as bad as actually using the other person’s real name as your username. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed images of TV show cast from Empty Nest and EastEnders. Is WP:NFCC#8 sufficient enough? If so, how would readers expect open content to help people understand the TV series? Can readers understand info about cast and characters? -- George Ho (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the Empty Nest photos, they were used simply to illustrate a list of cast members, devoid of any substantive commentary. The same function could be served (perhaps better served) by a gallery of free head shots. For Eastenders, we were dealing with a gallery of nonfree group shots, without specific sourced commentary for each image. Worse, the casts were so large that the small images were not very communicative. Even the single image that remains is probably more decorative than communicative. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Re-reading WP:NFCC, how do you think removing the cast photos would not impact readers' understanding about the show? I.e. readers curious about the appearances of the cast while learning about TV shows, like Empty Nest. Can Wikipedia content adequately teach readers about TV shows without the cast photos? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NFC#CS says that "contextual significance" is subjective and varies, even with two common circumstances. George Ho (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I spotchecked articles on about a dozen similar TV shows of the same vintage, and about 80% did not use cast photos at all. Consensus practice appears to run against your position, which you don't provide any positive evidence in favor of. Major films like Chicago, Midnight Cowboy, No Country for Old Men, and West Side Story similarly stand without nonfree cast photos. If you're going to challenger an established pattern and practice like this, you badly need to provide policy-grounded arguments that would directly support your position, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see from the state of your talk page that you are a seasoned and controversial editor here. I don't have a big issue with your edit removing the image, but I'm interested in the explanation about the fair use rationale being 'invalid'. Surely it serves a purpose for showing the distinctive visual branding and range of products they typically carry? Cheers daylon124 (talk)

The use rationale states that the image is being used to support textual discussion of the "line of products". There is no such text in the article. Also, the promotional nonfree image could be replaced with a free(r), user-created image showing examples of the product line. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I do not see that it applies in this case. The kiss is the main reason this couple is WP:Notable. It's not about "oh, readers can imagine them kissing." It's about the fact that this particular moment is groundbreaking/historical and the image is displaying that particular moment. While they have kissed other times on the series, it is this kiss that received all of the media attention. We are allowed to include a non-free image when the imagery itself is the discussion or when the imagery validly aids the topic of discussion. And, no, I do not believe that what you did in this case -- making the image the lead image -- is the solution. This is per what I stated with this edit. Furthermore, whether or not to keep this image was discussed before; see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg. The consensus was to keep the image. I suggest you put it up for another WP:Files for discussion if you want it deleted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make a nonconstructive removal of sourced claim to the above article. I made a minor grammar edit (removing an unnecessary comma). Regards Denisarona (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Denisarona: Seems like your edit was caught up in the revert of another edit; notice how in Hullaballoo's edit summary it says "Reverted 2 pending edits by 63.144.52.250 and". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says: Reverted 2 pending edits by 63.144.52.250 and Denisarona to revision 897786156 by JDuggan101: nonconstructive removal of sourced claim. Denisarona (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have reverted your edits on Gia Darling, Francesca Le, Cash Markman, Tim Von Swine, Tiffany Clark and Deidre Holland, Please use Afd to gain a consensus, not just arbitrarily delete based on your personal viewpoint. --John B123 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --John B123 (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
I recently uploaded few pics from Flickr to Commons. Majority of images are those of copyrights: Attribution-ShareAlike. Would you plz clarify on a doubt of mine, that if the author (in Flickr) ever if changes the copyright of those images to something: Not OK to Commons like Attribution-NoDerivs, will the bot (like FlickreviewR 2) immediatley considers it as Not OK and so eligible for deletion? --Gpkp (u • t • c) 09:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really familiar with the details of the relevant bot's operation, but I believe it only checks the status of an image once. Releasing an image under a free license is generally irrevocable; rights validly given to the public can't be taken back later. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edit summary citing the WP NFC guideline. I won't be making that mistake again. Cheers! -- Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rafat Albadr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Physical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote	notes
It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot;	Wrong. He saw a video made by someone playing the game; he took a screenshot; and he tweeted a request for the actual game.
if he had created the screenshot; he presumably had the game mod it was created from, and wouldn't have needed to request a copy of it.	About 3/4 of the way down the CBC article is a copy of his tweet. The comment above the image says "Where can I get the Brussels airport MOD on call of duty?:" Where did he snap the screenshot? I am sorry you didn't bother to read my comment, where I linked to a YouTube video made by someone playing that version of the game. That video is 294 seconds long. The screenshot used to illustrate no russian was snapped at 24 seconds, when the shooters have fired just a few rounds. The screenshot Mohammed snapped was at about 26 seconds, after the five shooters have been blasting the crowd for just two second - still long enough to have fired hundreds of rounds into the several dozen people you can see in a pile of dead and wounded.
There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent.	might be time for some new spectacles.
(it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale)	The video portion of this global news article (at about 26 seconds) explicitly refers to the image he snapped as a "massacre": "According to RCMP testimony, this image, a massacre, from a graphic video game, is what Mohammed posted online the same day he was arrested." An RS referred to the image showing a "massacre". I suggest anyone who gave this issue fair consideration would agree we can refer to this as a violent image from a violent video game.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much like your complaint about edit notes as a form of discussion, your taking a discussion about an article and moving it to the user talk page of one single participant also makes it difficult to determine how events unfolded for the rest of us... -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ferret, I've crossed paths with Hullaballoo multiple times, over multiple years. My conclusions are:

1. Hullaballoo is genuinely well-intentioned, is genuinely convinced that his or her edits will improve the wikipedia;
2. I am convinced Hullaballoo's comments that suggest he or she feels like a victim are sincere, and that they do feel like a victim, more of a victim than the people, like me, to whom they have a history of being abrasive.
3. I believe Hullaballoo is genuinely unaware of how abrasive they can be.
4. In my opinion Hullaballoo manifests a terrible failing, one which is unfortunately much more common among wikipedia contributors than it should be. Hullaballoo seems to have a terrible problem considering the possibility that people who disagree with them may be making valid points.

   I don't want to win every disagreement I have on the wikipedia. I always do my best to consider the other guy's point of view. And, if after I have done so, I conclude I was wrong, I say so. This is what is best for the project.

• Yes, I could have left the comment above at Talk:Kevin_Omar_Mohammed. It was a judgement call. Knowing how prickly Hullaballoo has shown themselves to be I thought these comments would be more likely to be effective if left at the slightly more private venue of User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
• What makes me think Hullaballoo can't acknowledge mistakes? Well, his or her behavior at Florin Fodor, for one. I uploaded File:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg in 2008. Hullaballoo excised that image in 2017, with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox"'.

  Is there some policy reason why nonfree images shouldn't be in infoboxex? I couldn't find one, nevertheless, I moved it out of the infobox, when I restored it.

  A year later Hullaballoo excised the image, again. This time their edit summary was "nonfree lede image in BLP".

  I applaud administrator Ronhjones closing comment at File talk:Florin Fodor in Grise Fiord - October 2006.jpg. It was a near-run thing. My regular wikistalker confused one administrator, who couldn't distinguish between their bogus vandal sockpuppet edits and genuine substantive positive edits.

• Hullaballoo relies on gut instincts and snap judgements. I genuinely think they should wise up and acknowledge they too are subject to normal human fallibility. In particular they failed in their excisions at Florin Fodor. They failed to use good judgment in failing to recognize an historic and non-reproducable image. They failed by offering confusing non-policy excision justifications in their edit summary. And, in my opinion, they failed by not publicly offering recognition that they got this one wrong, after the closure. Geo Swan (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Wikipedia uses a photo from the same source, and it's fair-free use rationale is justified but this is not? How is the fact there is no non-free substitute not a justification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Sp00n exe. Each Wikipedia project has its own policies and guidelines determined by its respective community; there might be some similarities and overlap, but there also might be some big differences. I'm not sure what Russian Wikipedia's policy on non-free content use it, but English Wikipedia's is quite restrictive, even more restrictive than US copyright law in some ways. That's the policy which matters when it comes to non-free files being used on English Wikipedia. Generally, as explained in WP:FREER, non-free images of still living persons are not going to be allowed per non-free content use criterion #1; there might be some exceptions to this as explained in item #1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but these are exceptions not the rule. A free equivalent of a non-free file does not have to currently exist, there only has to be a reasonable expectation that it can be found or created. It doesn't have to be created or found by you, it can be anyone, and it doesn't have to be created or found by any particular date. Moreover, a free equivalent doesn't even have to be a free version of the exact same file, it can be a different file and only has to be sufficient enough to provide the same basic encyclopedic information and serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose.

The file you were trying to use (File:Natalya Murashkevich.jpg) was removed by Hullaballo Wolfowitz, but it was actually deleted by an administrator named Explicit per WP:F7; it's important to note that the deletion was per WP:F7, not WP:F5. Explicit is quite experienced in dealing with non-free files and wouldn't have deleted the file for F7 reasons if he disagreed with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment. If you feel that there are special considerations which should've been taken into account, the best thing to do would be to discuss them with Explicit on his user talk page; perhaps, your arguments will be persuasive enough to get Explicit to restore the file for further discussion. There's really not anything more that Hullaballo Wolfowitz can do here since he cannot restore a deleted file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that your post at Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram#This just in... spells McConnell's name Motch. My keyboard is a bit slippery and I make mistakes like that all the time. OTOH if you want it spelled that way that is fine - thought I'd let you know just in case. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HW, The image File:Bernie Dresel Playing Drums.jpg license has been updated to what I hope is the most correct/appropriate. This to be used on the Bernie Dresel page. Please check this to make sure it is right. Of all things that I've uploaded or created on Wikipedia (which is many), knowing what is the correct attribution and licensing for images/picture is the most difficult. In this case, Dresel was contacted after the draft was written and forwarded/authorized his own bio pic (which he owns). At that point there seems to be several licenses listed that apply to that situation. Evidently I am still quite unclear as to which among the long licensing list is the most applicable for current, copyrighted material used from the creator (who gave permission). Please advise if possible.

Thanks for your help! Shelyric (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only the copyright holder may license an image. Since you are not the copyright holder, you need to either 1) show that the image was published elsewhere, under the authority of the copyright holder, with an appropriate free license; or 2) provide proof of the licensing to WP:OTRS. Wikipedia-limited permission is not sufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your characterization of my good faith nomination of Sarah Hoyt, and I find your accusation of bad faith un-civil. I spent several hours trying to research the subject after learning of the author and article's existence but after finding reason to doubt notability and an almost complete lack of compliant sourcing on the page I followed the procedures listed on wikipedia. I would appreciate an apology. Imadethisstupidaccount (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I would appreciate a hot night of passion with the young Diana Rigg. But it ain't gonna happen.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from my edit summary reverting you again, you're risking a block if you persist. Nonetheless, you have two choices. One, comment at the AfD that it should be snow closed and why. Two, take it to ANI and get an administrator to agree with you and close it that way. But you can't on your own close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I see from your edit summary is that you're just another fucking abusive admin who refuses to follow or to cite governing policy and insisting that his little tin admin badge allows him to the rest of us animals who are less equal than others. Well, your behaviour here demonstrates why you're not worthy of respect. You don't even pretend to argue with my carefully stated, policy-based justification for my actions. I've been told, and accepted, that disputable, good faith NAC closures should be taken to DRV or, in worst cases, to AN/I, not unilaterally reversed. You don't dispute that this was a good faith closure with a policy basis. Why the fuck do you think that you don't have to follow generally applicable policies? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I say what I see? At first glance your NAC seems to have some merit, though your response to Bbb was of course rude and unnecessary. But then again, if you look closely, it all falls apart. The first PROD was applied by someone with one single edit, sure--so they're automatically an SPA, but there is no proof of socking, none whatsoever. The AfD's intentions are hard to figure out, and your easy answers lack proof--plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated. You didn't know that, but you're jumping to conclusions. Now, if your suppositions had been either proven correct or were reasonable and supported by evidence, you would have been correct in closing it, but neither is the case yet. To make a long story short, you are the one not following applicable policy, given WP:NACPIT item 1, which also points at the "understanding that the closure may be reversed". Which is what happened. And Bbb's is correct to point out that a comment at the AfD and maybe a ANI would have been the right thing to do. Instead, you're insulting him, treating him, yes, like dirt. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• yep, accept that they can be reversed but assume (maybe i shouldn't:)) that it should be reversed based on the rest of no. 1 ie. "The nominated item is a controversial topic, or the discussion is controversial.", nope, "That the item meets appropriate closure is a close call", none of the 6 editors involved in the discussion up to that point suggested other than "keep", and didn't "just vote" but explained why Hoyt is notable, so to me looked like an appropriate early close (i do acknowledge that Hull's edit comments may have been inappropriate/incorrect but that doesn't mean that their early close was also incorrect). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HW. I'm wondering what you think about this file's non-free use. The person behind the bag (so to speak) is still living so may be it's possible that he's still performing as the unknown comic which makes a non-free not really acceptable per WP:FREER. At the same time, this might be considered one of the exemptions to NFCC#1 mentioned in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI since it seems his appearance played a big role in his popularity (even though it's just a paper bag). Given the Unknown Comic seemed to reach his peak of popularity in the early to mid 1970s, there might also be a free publicity photo floating around out there that might be OK as {{PD-US-no notice}}. Lots of files show up in a Google Image search (mostly screenshots), but I'm not sure where else to check. Any ideas? -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that "The Unknown Comic" is a fictional character, while the article is a BLP of Murray Langston, the performer who sometimes performed as that character. A nonfree image of an actor playing a character generally isn't allowed in the performer's BLP. The uploader's use rationale is also patently invalid. So the image really ought to go, as things stand now. I also agree that there are likely to be free, no-notice publicity shots available -- in fact, this image might well be such an image. It's certainly a publicity shot, and if the date for a promo piece like this [1] could be established, it would likely be free. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding sooner. Thanks for taking a look at this. Your point about the image being of a fictional character is a good one that I didn't consider. I guess it would be better for the infobox image to be of Langston sans the paper bag per WP:FREER with perhaps the character image being used in the body of the article. Do you think the page should be moved to Murray Langston though Tiny Tim (musician) is a similar type of article?

As for the date of the photo you found, I did find this. According to that website The Unknown Comic performed at World's of Fun on July 16, 1980 and Conway Twitty performed on July 19 & 20, 1980. If that's accurate, then I don't think {{PD-US-no notice}} would work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this part also need to be removed? Sources, a Radio station website.

"Cabello started dating English dating coach Matthew Hussey in February 2018"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camila_Cabello EditorsHelp101 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but even more important, the specific claim isn't supported by the reference. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One user has messed up redirection for the page Amanda Cerny. As you have worked on that page previously, can you take a look? Thanks 106.51.132.220 (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph of Congressman Chudoff that I added to the List of Jewish Members of the United States Congress article is the one included in his Wikipedia article, and is listed as being from the Pennsylvania Legislature and being "fair use": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Chudoff#/media/File:Earl_Chudoff_PA_Legislature_Pic.jpeg. Do you have additional information that belies what is claimed in the Earl Chudoff article? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NFLIST. Also note that a separate, valid nonfree use rationale is required for each article in which a nonfree image appears, and since you did not provide one the image was subject to summary removal. Use of a nonfree image in one article does not alone justify its use in any other article.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

You seem to have removed images that I posted for the Scott Williams article. Some were taken by me, showing the artist's work, whcich I had permission to show. How can I get these pictures back? I had permissions, and hold the copyright on some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Williams_(artist)

Wikpedia is dedicated to using free media, rather than non-free. See WP:NFCC. So, even if you had permission to show his work, held copyright on the photos, it would likely be removed under the NFCC policy, as it still wouldnt comply with our 'free' requirements, which are stricter than eg US Fair Use allows. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. I'd add simply that in a short biography like this, without any sourced commentary regarding the artist's work, a single example is generally sufficient; five examples was clear an excessive number. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how NPOV issues are caused by stating voting record on human rights in the same manner as voting record on animal welfare is stated.Dftm86 (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the concept of "human rights" is not clearly defined and what may qualify as "human rights" is often controversial. The precise issues involved should be identified with more particularity. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Do you think there's a chance that File:1943-First Four AAGPBL.gif and File:AAGPBL Victory Song.jpg are possibly {{PD-US-no notice}}? If or {{PD-US-not renewed}}. If not, then neither file's non-free use seems NFCCP compliant. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that they're both copyright-nonrenewed, but without better sourcing we'll never be able to show it. I also not that the credit in the "First Four" caption doesn't appear consistent with the sourcing on the file page, but a quick online search for the "Northern Indiana Center for History" wasn't very helpful. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I didn't notice the discrepancy between caption and source; so, nice catch. I ask about these at MCQ to see if perhaps someone can track down their original source since it seems unlikely to be that website. Perhaps if the original source can be found, then perhaps their possible PD status can be clarified; otherwise, I don't think these can be kept per NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment here. It inspired me to make this comment. I did ping you, but I don't think the ping worked (as the software doesn't like pings added to already signed sections), so leaving you this note instead. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Charles Dexter Ward.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am trying my best to learn all the ins and outs of non-free images so hopefully you can give me some input? So looking at your comments it appears that I've overstepped some non-free image rules by putting a picture of the mask they wear in the info box. Is there a specific guideline on what can/cannot go in the info box? and follow up, if the image is not placed in the info box but possibly used in the article itself could that possibly be allowed? Thanks in advance. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You removed the image File:CGP Grey stick figure.png from CGP Grey with the message "disputed nonfree uses should be removed pending resolution of the dispute, and no one denies that this use violates NFCC#1". However, there is a discussion at Talk:CGP Grey#Image where everyone besides yourself HAS denied that the image violates NFCC. Because you stopped responding on the talk page, the dispute is essentially resolved in favor of keeping the image. You may continue to make your case and keep the discussion going on the talk page, but until a new consensus is reached, the previous consensus (that the image is acceptable) will stand per WP:BRD. –IagoQnsi (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@IagoQnsi: You shouldn't really remove speedy deletion templates from file's you've uploaded. You can contest the template by adding {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} and then by explaining why on the file's talk page. The admin who review the speedy deletion tag will see what you post and may then decide that further discussion is needed at WP:FFD. You can also start a discussion at FFD yourself if you want. The consensus established on the file's talk page is a local consensus that cannot override policy like WP:NFCC or a community consensus established at FFD; so, FFD is probably going to ultimately be were things need to be resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I don't think an admin is going to delete this per WP:F7 since there appears to be quite a bit of disagreement as to whether this violates FREER being made on the article's talk page. I think that this is likely going to end up at FFD one way or another; so, probably the image should be left alone at least to an admin reviews the speedy deletion template you added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly - I believe the talk page discussion (and some of the discussion here) conflates two issues. Whether to include a photograph of the article subject, when a free image that can properly identify the article subject, is a matter of editorial discretion. WP:BLPPRIVACY does not call for this result, particularly in the case of a public figure who allows himself to be freely photographed at his public appearances. The issue is not the adequacy of the available free photos as identifying images, but a different, discretionary, concern. However, the ban on replaceable nonfree images is not discretionary, not a matter of editorial decisionmaking, and is compelled by WMF policy, which cannot be overriden by local or even global consensus here. Because free images of the subject are available, and certainly could be created if they were not, a nonfree image of the article subject cannot be used, whether we choose as an editorial matter to display a free image or not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you which is why I posted this and re-added the SD template to the file as it had been improperly removed. I was only bringing up FFD because I remember this being discussed before but couldn't remember where when I posted the above. Related discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#NFCC#1 exemptions for BLP privacy reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that the Astral dreadnought article you have recently restored has been taken into a regular AfD, in case you want to give your opinion. Daranios (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:Playboy Playmate template list. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Playboy Playmates by year has been nominated for merging with Template:PlayboyPlaymateTimeHeader. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your signature is breaking the WP:NOTADVOCACY rule of Wikipedia. I think your signature is political in nature. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not willing to explain your position, there is nothing meaningful to respond to --especially since the policy you refer to does not mention signatures and userboxes that are "political in nature" are broadly accepted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I believe the "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!" part is political in nature and can easily cause unnessary strife in discussions. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Shhh... best not mention it then... and they won't notice...) Seriously, though, has it actually caused any such strife? I interact with people all the time who openly express their support for Donald Trump, and it's never caused me any strife. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I hope you don't mind that I modified the subheading, as there's an identical one above and it confuses the software. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's in a signature so it's plastered everywhere. Isn't that like WP:SOAPBOX since Hullaballoo is spreading his viewpoint on every page where he leaves his signature. Are you saying I can include "down with Donald Trump" in my signature? WP:SOAPBOX specifically says

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions."

This can be extended to signatures too, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if you want to know what I'm saying then all you need to do is read what I'm saying, and if it doesn't include what you're asking me if I'm saying then I'm not saying it. Specifically, if I'd meant to say you could include "down with Donald Trump" in your signature, I'd have said 'You can include "down with Donald Trump" in your signature'. Oppositional political statements tend to be less acceptable by the community than supportive ones. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) WP:SOAPBOX mentions "user pages" too and also "talk page discussions." Therefore, I think the Hong Kong portion of the signature contravenes WP:SOAPBOX --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see you removed the portion that mentions SOAPBOX doesn't include talk pages. It does. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realised my error immediately after my "PS" comment, so I quickly removed it - but not quickly enough to save my embarrassment, it seems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason for the edit conflict. Hence my statement above may not make much sense since it is replying to your PS. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TYW7 acknowledges that no disruption can be attributed to the portion of my signature they object to. They don't deny that content, like userboxes, which is "political in nature", is allowed. They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them. But it hasn't been. Exactly the same could be said of userboxes, and would require the deletion of scores if not hundreds of userboxes on thousands of userpages. This is just an IDONTLIKEIT complaint, and I see no reason for the discussion to continue and waste users' time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

As User:Levivich mentions, this is a slippery slope. Though I object to the first part mentioning about administrators, there is no clear cut case in WP:SOAPBOX. However, the political part is a clear cut case. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. " --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the slippery slope, and I say that as someone who hates "slippery slope" arguments. If the community permits one editor to put "support HK" in their signature then the community can't really stop me from adding "support Brazil" or what have you, and if it catches on, our talk pages will become covered in political slogans. At that point we'll pass a rule prohibiting it.

Wait... isn't that what already happened? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well SOAPBOX doesn't mention "signature" specifically. And I think that's the loophole Hullaballoo is trying to use. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if SOAPBOX mentions signatures or not because a signature is part of a talk page comment, and SOAPBOX mentions talk page comments, article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Using that signature on an article talk page is a black-and-white violation of NOT policy. The only question is whether this violation is causing any meaningful disruption, and on that point I'm not convinced. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)My view is all political messages should not be included as it contravenes WP:SOAPBOX, no matter if it's disruptive or not. Also, tell that to Hullaballoo, who states They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them. So yes they are Wikilawyering about the wording of the policy. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are other things it doesn't mention, like userboxes. You describe exclusions you don't like as "loopholes", which iss just another way of putting your thumb on the scale. The current balance was struck after an extended and painful conflict centered on userboxes. I doubt any sensible user would see it reopened. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You are WP:LAWYERING. You fully know the spirit of WP:SOAPBOX is no "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." While WP:SOAPBOX does not specifically mention signatures, it does mention talk pages and user pages. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are just ignoring reality. SOAPBOXES mentions userpages, but does not prohibit "commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise" content in userboxes. The community drew the line quite some time ago, and that you don't like where the line was drawn doesn't justify this tendentious haranguing. Tgis discussion is over here. Stop your timewasting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Suit yourself. Let's take this to ANI. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's_signature --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go find something more productive to do. I'm sure there is a category somewhere that needs sorting that could benefit from your attention. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that if Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz post their signature to article talk pages or somewhere else where soapboxing is clearly unwelcome, you should feel free to remove their comment for soapboxing. You could just remove that part of their signature, but redacting part of someone's comment often causes more of a headache than just removing the whole thing. Don't blame me if you are blocked for trying though. The stupid thing is, if a bunch of editors are willing to get blocked over it, it may become enough of an issue that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be forced to change their signature. Yet somehow it makes sense to allow Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's clear disruption just because others care more about Wikipedia than they do and therefore aren't willing to cause this strife and therefore are not doing this. Nil Einne (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavo Moretto. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sandstein 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that comment. It appears correct in all respects. You appear to be under the misapprehension saying accurate things about an editor's editing practices that are not positive is a personal attack. It is not. Your time would be better spent encouraging the editors who raise shoddy AFD's to improve rather than making baseless threats. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, did you even read what I posted? In that AFD, the nominator deliberately made false accusations against me, apparently in retaliation for solidly justified criticism of his poor AFD practices. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Houston (actor) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Wade Edwards. No one denies this, not you, not the experienced-at-AFD nominator (who doubled down on their intentional falsehoods). My comments detailed exactly what was false. This is, quite precisely, commenting on content. I would also note that describing an editor's content as "lying" or as a "lie" is not considered, by policy or practice, as a personal attack; see, for example, the comment (#1 oppose) in this currently running RFA, where an experienced admin describes an editor's conduct as "lying to people". (To be sure, an editor who makes false claims of this nature in bad faith may be sanctioned for disruption, but that is not the issue here.) My edits have been repeatedly described as "dishonest", or as lies, or in similarly insulting terms, and my complaints were rejected out of hand (particularly with regard to the notorious, now-WMF-banned Scalhotrod and the paid porn industry promoter Rebecca1990. Your "warning" is contrary to policy and practice, and you should expeditiously, expressly, withdraw it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree. The AfD read: "A non notable BLP. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Deprodded with no sources added nor any explanation." This AfD text is focused on the content of the article, and while it does criticize the deprodding, it does so without mentioning you. It is in no way an accusation or a personal attack against you. It was you who personalized the disagreement when you replied: "Nominator, don't lie", " Any reasonable editor would understand this", "your COI tag was ridiculous" and used generally confrontative, aggressive and personal language. This conduct violated our core conduct policy WP:NPA, which instructs users to "comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Please heed this warning or you may be sanctioned for further such conduct. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My attention has been drawn to this conversation. Firstly, regarding the claim that my comments were in retaliation - I hadn’t even made the connection between the different AFDs, I was merely commenting on the article, not the editor. Secondly, regarding “shoddy” AFDs, according to WP:AFDSTATS nearly 80% of my nominations are agreed by the community. Thirdly, can I remind you that there is a real person responding to each of your comments? I don’t think you realise how hurtful some of your comments are. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Andrea Elson article, non-free headshot was added because no free alternative is currently available. When one is found, I would be happy to add it.Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) (talk page watcher)@Wk3v78k23tnsa: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the file from the article since this type of non-free use is pretty much never allowed. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion per WP:F7 because it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1; if you disagree with the tag, feel free to explain why on the file's talk page. Just for reference, the fact that a free equivalent doesn't currently exist is almost always never consider a sufficient justification for using a non-free one in this type of way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. WP:NFCC is quite clear on this point: a nonfree image may be used "only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created. This is virtually always the case for living persons; the few exceptions recognized are cases like inmates serving life sentences, long-term fugitives, or the permanently institutionalized. Merely having dropped from the public eye in insufficient. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi HW. I understand why you removed this file, but it was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 16#File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg and kept as a result. Then, there was also this from just last month by another editor who, like yourself, does quite a bit of NFCC cleanup. If something has changed since that 2016 FFD that now makes the file replaceble non-free use, then perhaps a better thing to do would be to re-discuss this at FFD. Even with the new infobox image someone might still try and argue that the file should be kept, but only moved to the body of the article. Simply removing the file so that it ends up deleted per F5 will most likely only lead to someone just re-adding it. Normally, I would suggest tagging it with rfu, but the admin who reviews the tag would probably decline it and say the file should be brought to FFD instead based on the above. I know others sometimes give you a hard time regarding your efforts to try and clean up NFCC problems, but I think you do a good job and very rarely make a mistake when you remove a file. I just think this time it might be better to not ignore the previous FFD and instead try and seek clarification or a reversal of it instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize for leaving a dodgy comment a couple of years ago. I think at the time you weren't communicating. Stay safe. scope_creep^Talk 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No content

Can you wikilink me to the Wikipedia article that describes what constitutes the parameters of a "current source" before information should be removed? I see you using that rationale in a number of your recent edits and would like to know what it is based off of. Thanks, oncamera 01:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reported you. See WP:ANI#Hullaballoo Wolfowitz making up sourcing rules to delete content they apparently disapprove. Not me. John from Idegon (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Asger Aaboe.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HW. You can ignore this notification since I've tagged the photo that was uploaded to Commons as a copyvio and restored the non-free that had been replaced. However, you may want to try and dig a bit deeper here since the uploader of the Commons file (Anaaboe) might be one of Aaboe's daughters. photo shownto the one you uploaded. It's possible (though it seems a stretch) that this photo could be a case of c:Template:PD-heirs if it was a work for hire, but that seems like a bit of work to try and sort out. Since uploading and replacing the photo were the only edits made by this account, my guess is that someone related to Aaboe Googled him and found the article, didn't like the photo, and decided to change it without even considering anything related to copyright at all. A good-faith mistake, but still a mistake. Whether you want to upload this photo as a non-free replacement is entirely up to you, but I'm assuming you saw other photos of Aaboe (probably even the one uploaded to Commons) and chose the one you chose because its provenance was clearer as well as for some other reasons.

FWIW, since the account has only made one edit so far, I didn't feel it was necessary to start advising them of WP:COI; if, however, they're going to start regularly editing the article, then I think adding {{Welcome-coi}} or {{uw-coi}} to their user talk will be warranted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "A. R. Long". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14#"A. R. Long" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that accusing an editor of misogyny belongs in a conduct forum (such as ANI) rather than in a content forum such as AFD, as happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Delaney. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People who can't tell the difference between discussion of structural/institutional bias and of the conduct of individual editors should give up any positions of authority they hold here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Because of your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aviam_Soifer, I searched here and there to see how true it was, and I'm highly disappointed with what I found. The fact that every athlete is considered notable (incorretly by WP:NOLYMPICS, if I may add) merely by participating in an olympics is really disturbing. Guess I should participate more in AfD of sportsmen than academics. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! First, while the situation at Gabbie Carter did warrant an extended note, it was not criterion G6. I briefly used the generic {{db}} template to store the note. That's probably the best way to put it on the face of the page; a talk page comment could also have been used.

That said, after re-reading the article, I agree that the BLP violations, while subtle in their placement, were profound in their effect. I have deleted it under criterion G10, because even if there was no malice in creating the article, the effects were too severe to allow it to stand. I used your wording in the expanded reason for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help some one has put delection request for article Pokemon in India. So help me to because before also it was previously also it was nominated. But you canel this request. Thank you

The photo in question was provided by photographer and copyright holder, Sue Melke, who is Barbara Niven’s partner in one business and her media branding consultant responsible for the content of her web page. If the photo is not properly identified, please let me know what needs done. Otherwise, the photo was provided to be placed on the Barbara Niven page and should be restored.

Thank you, Old Beeg ..warble·· 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Oldbeeg. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the image because non-free images of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per non-free content use criterion #1 of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The reason for this is that it's almost always considered reasonable for a freely-licensed equivalent that is capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one to either be found or created by someone at some point. If, as you state, the copyright holder provided you with this image, then perhaps you can ask them to get them to email their WP:CONSENT to Wikimedia OTRS for the file to be uploaded under a free license that Wikipedia accepts. You can find out a little more about this at c:Commons:Licensing, but basically Wikipedia only will accept free licenses that essentially allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and re-use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative re-use); moreover, once the copyright holder agrees to such a thing, they can't "cancel" the license after the fact if they change their mind as explained here. So, even though there are Creative Commons licenses that can be used for "non-commercial use only" or "non-derivative use" only types of content, such licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia's purposes. If you want an idea as to how to ask the copyright holder for this permission, please see WP:PERMISSION and c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? for more information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Marchjuly said. The WMF has made a very strong commitment to free content, and some people and photographers aren't comfortable with fully relinquishing control over their copyrighted images. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries.  // Timothy :: talk  13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had mentioned in the descriptions of those uploads in the article Colin Keiver that I have permission from the publishers of those images. I am unsure as to why you had deleted them. Please, undo those edits or explain why. Johny3936 (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention how you then proceed to change the image of him in the cockpit of the airplane to the main cover image. If anything, remove the others WITH REASON though leave that out of the picture that would represent him. Please do explain why you have decided to vandalize this Wikipedia page without reason. I’ll mention it again, both of those images had been approved for usage. Johny3936 (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before you embarrass yourself any further, you badly need to learn the basics of Wikipedia's nonfree use policy. The images I removed were nonfree, as you indicated in their image file pages. Absent certain rare exceptions, not at all relevant here, nonfree images of the article subject may not be displayed in biographies of living persons. While you may have permission from the original publisher to use those images, Wikipedia-only permission is not sufficient to allow use. Those images can only be used for your purposes if the copyright holder provides a full release allowing use by anyone, such as a CC BY-SA 3.0 License, allowing upload to Commons; and for previously published images, it is best to provide permission through the OTRS process. This is a clear-cut matter. Those images may not be used without an appropriate release, and are subject to automatic deletion in the near future.

You should also be aware that flinging around wholly unfounded accusations of vandalism is considered disruptive behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify the above. Point 1 of WP:NFCC addresses this (emphasis mine). "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". The encyclopedic purpose here in showing what Mr Keiver looks like. While the current picture is not the best in terms of portraiture, it is however a free public domain equivalent. Even if there was no free picture, the second part of point 1 would come into play "or could be created". We would not use a non-free picture of a living person except under extreme circumstances (they are unable to be photographed and are conceivably never likely to be) which is a rare occurance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Hi Johny3936. Just going to pipe in and say that both Hullaballoo Wolfwitz and Only in death are correct about how Wikipedia's non-free content use policy deals with non-free images of living persons. There are some exceptions to this listed in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI, but I can see how any of them would apply here. While it's great that images have been approved for use, that really doesn't mean much unless the copyright holders of the images are willing to give their WP:CONSENT for the images to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license as explained in WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files and c:COM:L. So, if you can contact the copyright holders of these images (be careful here since the copyright holder of a photo is almost always the person taking the photo and not the subjct of the photo) and get them to give their consent as explained in c:COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?, then I'm sure Hullaballo Wolfwitz will have no problem with the images being used in the article (at least from a copyright standpoint). Otherwise, without the copyright holders' consent being verified, there's really no way such images can be kept as they will need to be treated as non-free content. Of course, you might disagree with this, and you can ask for other opinions at WP:MCQ, WT:NFCC or even WP:FFD if you like, but again I think you're going to have real hard time establishing a consensus in favor of this type of non-free use. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to get tired of these confrontational Wikipedia moderators like Hullaballoo who make edits without even explaining what they did. If we’re playing by the Wikipedia rules, is that how it is supposed to be done when you’re making such a large edit to the page? I am asking that you stop changing that picture to the profile picture. It is terrible. You can leave it as a photo in the body section of the page instead of putting a terrible photo that just looks worse than ever with the text below it at the top. Also, of course, just like anyone with their own profile page on this website, Hullaballoo, strikes with the confrontational behaviour and tells me I should learn Wikipedia’s policies before I “embarrass” myself “even further”. Isn’t that mature there. Well, the thing is that you work on Wikipedia constantly and I am unsure how you haven’t embarrassed you or your family yet at this point. I am removing that picture from the cover image. Do not change it. You are genuinely vandalizing my work when you do so. I will change that picture back to where it was before and it can be left here. I’ve read some of your other discussions on your page and you are definitely nothing more than confrontational with everyone on Wikipedia. Johny3936 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, changing the text under the image? Are you serious? There is a reason it is as detailed is it is! It’s like writing a math equation then cutting it short for space and removing half of the symbols. It doesn’t work that way. Please fix that yourself or leave this page alone. You are genuinely crossing the line from your overdramatic orders regarding the images to now changing things that don’t even need to be changed. Get a grip bud. Johny3936 (talk) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you deleted the newspaper cover I added to Carlos Petroni. In San Francisco, those papers were rather iconic. My thought was that an image of a well known project by Petroni would improve the article, and add greater understanding to his work. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule is that nonfree images of an article subject's work may not be displayed in their biography -- album covers for a musician, book covers for an author, movie posters for a director, magazine covers for an editor, etc. Note that right now there is no cover in the article for Harold Ross, one of the most famous/notable American magazine editors ever. (There will be one added later today, though, because as a 1925 publication it entered the public domain at the beginning of this year. There is a very narrow exception when the article includes sourced discussion of the cover image itself, but that doesn't apply here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for all the great work you do Hullaballoo Wolfowitz!

Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you deleted all of the images from Lee Weiner's page. Each image has a non-free use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because non of the images had valid use rationales. In general, nonfree content policy treats all nonfree images of living persons as replaceable by free images, with very narrow exceptions (prisoners, fugitives, etc, and people whose notability rests on their particularly distinctive past physical appearance) which don't apply here. Absent specific, sourced content regarding the cover image itself, nonfree book covers are generally allowed only in the article whose principal subject is the book itself. NFCC policy is much more restrictive than standard "fair use". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - starting with the first image that was in the infobox, I think there is notability based on the particularly distinctive past physical appearance, which could be made more clear in the use rationale, e.g. Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs writes about the recent movie The Trial of the Chicago 7, "(defendant Lee Weiner was extremely hairy and hippie-ish but is presented in the film as clean-cut and nerdy),"1 and John Kifner of the New York Times reported on the haircuts that most of the Chicago 7 defendants received in jail, as well as what happened afterward 2. As a general matter, the 'counterculture' appearance of several of the Chicago 7 defendants has been noted by many sources; clarifying Lee Weiner's actual appearance during the trial as compared to the depiction in the recent movie had also seemed noteworthy. It is also a historic photograph that can't be replaced because it was taken in 1970. I am less familiar with these policies and would appreciate your assistance with bringing this image into compliance with Wikipedia policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On your first question, Weiner's appearance isn't a basis for his notability, and the inaccuracy is the film can be conveyed by text alone. With regard to the other images, I frankly don't see any way for any of the other images to be used in the article unless the copyright holders issue full releases via WP:OTRS -- although if you can show that the poster was originally published without a copyright notice, it could be used as a free image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on a visual inspection, the poster does not appear to have a copyright notice and was created ca. 1970, so I would appreciate it if you would restore that image. As to the image in the infobox, one of the reasons I am asking for the restoration of that image is the contextual significance, per WP:NFCI, of the history of the trial. Nathan Robinson did not find text sufficient to convey the difference between Weiner's appearance during the trial and the recent film, and included a hyperlink to the image, which seems to help emphasize how the image aids the reader's understanding and its omission would be detrimental. Per WP:NFCCP, I have not found any free equivalent despite extensive searching, and explained how the significantly cropped and low-resolution image was intended to respect the commercial opportunities of the original copyrighted material, engaged in minimal use, found the work published outside of Wikipedia, attempted to explain the contextual significance, and described the image with available information, including the artist and publisher. As I review the policies, I haven't found a discussion of a specific policy related to living persons, which makes it more challenging for me to respond to your concerns. I do take this issue very seriously and I appreciate any help you can provide with developing a valid rationale for the inclusion of the infobox image. Thank you Beccaynr (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of how the appearance of the defandants, including Lee Weiner, was notable, there are these excerpts from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision on the appeal of the criminal convictions: "Perhaps secondary, but significant, were the conflicts of values represented by the so-called youth culture — hippies, yippies and freaks—in contrast with the more traditional values of the vast majority of the community, presumably including most citizens summoned for jury service. Again, we are not unaware that many otherwise qualified members of the community could not be impartial toward, and in fact are often offended by, persons who wear long hair, beards, and bizarre clothing and who seem to avoid the burdens and responsibilities of regular employment. Several defendants would exemplify this conflict." [...] "The district judge properly instructed the jurors that they “must not in any way be influenced by any possible antagonism you may have toward the defendants or any of them, their dress, hair styles, speech, reputation, courtroom demeanor or quality, personal philosophy or lifestyle.” The United States Attorney should not have urged the jury to consider those things." (Ragsdale, Bruce. (2008) The Chicago Seven: 1960s Radicalism in the Federal Courts, at 62-65.) Beccaynr (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that such statements can be adequately conveyed by text alone, and do not require illustration. Such concepts as "long hair" and "beards" are commonly understood. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply - I don't agree with the short answer, and I have tried to develop a longer explanation on the file's Talk page, and in the updated rationale. At this point, I have responded to three files, on their Talk pages and with updated rationales, because I don't think I clearly explained the purpose in accordance with the policies when I uploaded them - as I continue to review the policies, it appears that with regard to the memoir book cover and the recent picture of Lee Weiner, I misunderstood how the policies apply when I uploaded them, so I have not yet taken any action on those files. Beccaynr (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, I am also wondering why WP:NFCCE did not apply before you deleted the images from the article, specifically, "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." By deleting the images from the article without notifying me (the uploading editor) and allowing an opportunity to provide a non-free-use defense on the file page, the files are now set to be deleted as orphans per criterion 7. In the meantime, the WP:NFCCE process appears to have been applied by an admin to the images, and I am responding on the file pages to the extent that it seems possible to better explain a non-free-use rationale. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NFCCE is not an instantaneous process; it depends on a small number of volunteers. Images are allowed to remain in articles unless challenged; the fact that an image is not immediately removed shows exactly nothing. You have been notified, by an automatic process, of pending deletion once the nonfree image has been verified by Wikipedia software as orphaned. I seriously recommend that you review policy pages regarding use and maintenance of nonfree content, because your arguments mostly try to relitigate long-settled issues. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it would be helpful to our discussion if you would cite sources in your replies to me, because there are a lot of policy pages and a long history of issues on Wikipedia that I am not as familiar with as a fairly new editor. For us to communicate as peers and on a more equal footing, pointing me towards references would help me constructively respond to your points. I asked for clarification about the NFCCE process because it has been confusing to me to first have the files deleted from the article by you, then to receive notification for most of them through an automated NFCCE process initiated by an admin, and then to receive notification through the automated orphan process. I have previously reviewed and continue to review the policy pages, which is how I found the NFCCE enforcement process, and I wanted to alert you that I am participating in it, but I was also curious if I had missed something in terms of a policy or guideline related to why you had not used the NFCCE process. I'm not trying to litigate, I am trying to understand, which is why I have asked for your help. Unfortunately, it isn't helpful to generally tell me to review policy pages and to generally refer to long-settled issues, but if there are specifics that you think are relevant to the files that I will be trying to better explain a rationale for through the NFCCE process, I think it would be best if further discussion of the files happens on those pages. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you took the profile image of Viper off his page. This has happened twice now with different people. I can confirm I have full permission to put his profile picture on the page as per https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/695843896361484378/763746370125037568/Screenshot_20201008-075344.png.

I admit this proof is a little dodgy - I have no idea if he actually sent the email or not. If you require more proof to his consent for the picture to be used on the page then I'll try and get a full statement out of him. If it's not that and there's something wrong with the submitting process that I have done please tell me. Thank you - Kettleonwater (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia-specific permission to use an image is insufficient. Only a full release, allowing anyone to use the image for any purpose, would allow use. Without a full release, the image is barred as a nonfree image of a living person. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Had a chat with Whpq about this (on my talk page). Currently making Viper himself fill out a Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries form. I'm going to revert the page to show the image for now, but if he fails to send the form in time and WP:NFCC#1 fails, then feel free to revert the edit. Kettleonwater (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's clearly contrary to our free content policies. The image must be removed unless/until sufficient per,ission is received. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to get some clarity on why you reverted the tag I placed on the page Lee Wagstaff. You used the phrase "facially invalid" which I do not understand. From my perspective, the subject of this article has no business being in an encyclopedia of knowledge. The subject is not notable in any discernable way. No relevant citations on the page are valid and no other verifiable citations could be found. ThePhantom65 (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for clarity you should begin by reading WP:BLPPROD, which states that the tag should only be placed on an article which "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". The article included no fewer than five pertinent external links. QED. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I only put the tag on there because a previous reviewer did and it was improperly removed by a different editor, not allowing for a proper decision. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have removed the relationship status for both individuals on their pages.

For Gurbaksh Chahal, on January 18 you stated →‎Personal life: no current source

For Rubina Bajwa, on January 18 you stated →‎Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated

I did not know just because you saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, you had the ability to remove their relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up?

On Google news, the first page brings three recent articles that clearly state they are still in a relationship:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/exclusive-interview-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-candid-confessions-on-rubina-bajwas-birthday/photostory/81185284.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/happy-birthday-rubina-bajwa-beau-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-the-cutest-video/articleshow/81186925.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/7days7lovestories-rubina-bajwa-and-gurbaksh-chahal-prove-opposites-attract/articleshow/80752363.cms

If you go to their verified instagram accounts, they are very much still a couple:

https://www.instagram.com/gchahal/

https://www.instagram.com/rubina.bajwa/

You had no right to remove content from this page as this clearly violates wikipedia guidelines. Please revert your edits and place this content back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have archived your talk page and removed all pre-2016 comments. Feel free to revert me. --🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HW is currently blocked. Maybe it would be best to leave his user talk page as is and leave it up to him to archive if he decides to return to editing after his block expires. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: That's fine. I'll wait until August 22. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, maybe it would be best to leave it up to HW to decide (1) if he wants to archive his user talk page and (2) how to best do that very thing if he decides that's want he wants to do. Unless you're willing to start a discussion about this at ANI, it seems like nothing good will come of you or anyone else trying to forcibly archive his user talk page. If you've got concerns about its length, then perhaps try discussing them with him once his account has been unblocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 800KB is impossible for almost all devices to handle. I have seen larger talk pages than this (User talk:Nightstallion is 880KB), but this is the largest regularly viewed talk page (with the occasional exception of User talk:EEng). Perhaps I could start a thread at WP:VPP about forcible archiving of talk pages. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Jar Jar Binks Must Die.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this. Fixed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HW. Welcome back. Now that your back, I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at File:Cindy Wilson.jpg. Do you think this could possibly be {{PD-US-no notice}} since it's non-free justification seem a bit iffy and it's unlikely that the original source is someone's Pinterest account? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfie is back, Hooray!

Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to remove well-sourced content. And, your previous summary was that was unsourced gossip. There are now two good sources, and there is no reason to remove it. WP:BRD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me your hypocrisy, @Walter Görlitz. You know perfectly well that you need a current source to claim that a celebrity "relationship" exists "currently", and an outdated source announcing that they have begun dating fails abjectly. And an editor who commits an edit like this [2] has no business complaing that someone else has removed "well-sourced" content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that sourced content is all that is required and not a current source. Comparing WP:NOTNEWS to WP:RS is not even reasonable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about. Period. And your citation of NOTNEWS to trivialize a woman's announcement of her pregnancy as equivalent to scoring a goal in a soccer match is an example of the structural misogyny so common here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If you say so, but I'm willing to take both issues to a larger community. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to embarrass yourself publicly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Not sure how you defined it as gossip when content is supported by sources are reliable source as per WP:KO/RS#R. In addition, I read this discussion in which I believe you are the same guy involved there as well, which stated that it can be included if they are reliable source which they are indeed reliable source and confirmed by both their agencies. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're badly misinterpreting the discussion you cite. That discussion makes the point that while currently reported relationships may be mentioned in an article if well-sourced, relationships which are not currently reported should not be absent some evidence of significance to the subject's life. The relationship here was only reported about three years ago, is is not well-sourced, but based on public relations copy from a subjects PR agency. So it should not be included without much more recent or more substantive sources. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I didn't badly misinterpreted it, but since you are adamant that the sources are not reliable source and insisting notable news source as a just copy from PR relations (which the agency didn't release any press release in their official website nor in either social media accounts) nor welcoming additional recent sources which I assumed that you will still treat it as just another gossip news. There isn't any point to discuss further as our views differ and that's completely fine.

Btw, you may want to clear up your talk page by archiving the old discussion or add Lowercase sigmabot III to help you do the job, as the huge amount of discussion is causing lagginess, slow loading when visting your talk page and also when replying. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice your signature when I first saw it. I'm sorry to say, it stands out, and quite for the wrong reasons. It's blatantly uncivil and polemical. I see you're rather fresh off of a 6 months block for exactly this kind of issue, but if you're not ready to fix this issue, it might have to be re-examined. @Wugapodes: FYI (as closer of that discussion), and for your independent judgement on this editor's signature too... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you undoubtedly know well, the issue has been repeatedly discussed, and, as once such discussion was formally closed, "Consensus here and below seems to be that Hullaballoo's sig is fine and that it isn't causing anyone any harm. Another time, the close was "If you're offended by his signature, you're allowed to personally ask him to change it. He's also allowed to refuse to do so. No sanctions will come from this". In yet another discussion, an editor declared "When I saw Hullaballoo's signature for the first time, it made me feel more welcomed and less alone". As one admin commented to an editor disputing such a close, "Go do something useful to improve the encyclopedia instead of pursuing this quixotic quest of yours".The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• For those of us who know the reasons behind said sig, its not uncivil, its an accurate statement of fact, albeit an unpleasant one. Which is largely why previous discussions of said sig dont end up with the resolution the people who take offense at it want. I would suggest you go take a long look at the AN/ANI archives, and when you have informed yourself sufficiently, ask yourself if this is a valuable use of your time. (For a starting point, see here and here.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  So two wrongs make a right? Since when? As for ANI being unable to resolve this; clearly this user has long-term civility issues, and one thing ANI is usually not too useful for (due to many reasons) is civility issues - unless they're really obvious - so that's what it's worth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RandomCanadian: Generally, the community has not come to a consensus that HW's signature is inappropriate. The previous block wasn't "for exactly this kind of issue". The previous block was for a specific incident and editing restriction; the discussion touched on the signature only tangentially. For this reason I noted in the close that there is no consensus to require a signature change. As HW points out above, the community generally tolerates the signature as it is, and personally I'm content to ignore it if the signature is the only concern. Unless there is a clear consensus to require a change, I'm not going to use admin tools just to fight over a signature. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]