| Revision as of 02:01, 19 January 2016 editMk17b (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,673 edits →Dowd & Shriver: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:06, 22 May 2024 edit undo2603:6081:7800:19e0:4587:dc96:2e06:9288 (talk)No edit summary | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Not around|3=September 2021}} | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| == Excessive images found on ] == | |||
| ]: she's dating Chris Smalling. Don't remove fact. Are you jealous or something? check your facts before you edit something. Can't believe this actually needs to be explained. Tsk tsk. | |||
| I was reviewing album articles and found four album covers on ]. Just wanted to draw your attention to this page. ] (]) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Brooklyn Lee== | |||
| :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. ] (]) 12:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Can you not? I am working on a new project, and updated my page to reflect this. No spamming involved. K, thanks. | |||
| :That's pretty much the paradigm of spamming. ] (]) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removal of context along with unfree images== | |||
| How do you figure? I uploaded current photographs to replace the former, outdated, and included information about a new project. All relevant. All Factual. On what planet is one prohibited from doing such to their own page?] (]) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| Sure, then if it makes your willy tingle, I'll remove the information about my current work (which IS relevant). The photos, however, are the most current that exist anywhere on the internet, so you are undermining the up-to-date status of the page by continuing to undo it. Also, please get a life. ] (]) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| --] <small>]</small> 06:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 12:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Need some help tracking down a ref == | |||
| Stop. You are intentionally removing up-to-date files/information. ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 -->] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been ]. Please make use of the ] if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> | |||
| Back when ] wasn't yet an article, you on the AfC that | |||
| ] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --> | |||
| :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, ] (]) 22:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :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 | |||
| ==Melissa Ashley== | |||
| hey dude, why are you removing my productive edits on her page. i discussed her activism in preventing overzealous porn prosecution in conservative districts. i documents it with bona fide sources - legitimate newspapers such as the Guardian, and US court documents, which are both public records and highly reliable and verifiable. This is a demonstration of her notability; she is well known as an activist in this regard. her notability had been in dispute, and this addressed that issue | |||
| https://www.nytimes.com/1961/03/11/archives/teenage-troupe-trying-peter-pan-for-off-broadway.html?searchResultPosition=1 | |||
| so... why are you interfering with documenting that activism? i will revert your edits removing this unless you cna explain why this information should not be documented. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| 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 . . . ] (]) 17:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::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? ] (]) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}} Pretty sure that ] is a copyvio and have tagged it as such. As for possible COI issues, if there's a connection between {{no ping|Factor-ies}} and ] (apparently there is per Factor-ies user page), then add {{tl|COI edit notice}} and {{tl|Connected contributor}} to the article's talk page and advise them not to directly edit the article except per ]. If they have any problems with doing this, then bring it up for discussion at ]. If there's a strong suspicion that Factor-ies is Feiden herself (apparently there are concerns about this per ]), then advise "her" about ]. If "she" still is not willing to abide by relevant policies and guidelines, then maybe this should be discussed as ANI. -- ] (]) 22:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::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". ] (]) 14:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::If that’s the case, then a {{tl|Connected contributor}} template should be added to the BLP article’s talk page as well as any others directly related to her. A {{tl|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 ] and ] and avoid directly editing the article. If she’s unwilling to do that, then she’s going to eventually end up at ] for ].{{pb}} In addition, if she’s been always signing as Feiden, then she should be made aware of ]. If she emails ] and has OTRS verify her identity per {{tl|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 ]ED for impersonation. ] applies to all Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article written about them) seems just as bad as actually using the other person’s real name as your username. — ] (]) 21:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of cast photos == | |||
| ==Andra Day== | |||
| Hello. I am the editor for the page Andra Day (Singer). I just wanted to say that I truly appreciate your sound, intelligent response to Fiddle Faddle. I won't even state how or why I disagreed with both that editor's comments and TONE, because you hit all the nails on their heads. Thank you, and regardless if our page works out, I hope you stick around as an editor. You are doing right by us this time, and I can only imagine you do just as right by others. Bless. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I see you have removed images of TV show cast from ] and ]. Is ] sufficient enough? If so, how would readers expect ] to help people understand the TV series? Can readers understand info about cast and characters? -- ] (]) 21:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Not bad faith== | |||
| :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. ] (]) 23:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: I disagree. Re-reading ], 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 ]. Can Misplaced Pages content adequately teach readers about TV shows without the cast photos? ] (]) 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: Also, ] says that "contextual significance" is subjective and varies, even with two common circumstances. ] (]) 05:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 '']'', '']'', ], and ] 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, ] (]) 15:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Euro Shopper feautured line of products.jpg == | |||
| Hi. You're not receiving bad faith or summary mistreatment by admins. Several of us have been extra patient in dealing with this problem because we don't want to block you. But if you keep fighting against community standards, that's what's going to happen, regrettably. There's no rush. Why don't you discuss this. If you can make a good case for your position, we might be able to accommodate you somehow, or there might be a compromise. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't want to point out the obvious - but Hullaballoo, at the moment, due to the move-war that you've initiated, when you moved ], you moved it to ], which was tagged and deleted as an implausible typo. At the moment, you're ''entire talk page history'' has been deleted. Continuing to try and redirect your archive to your talk page is, well, futile at the moment. {{ping|Fram|Jehochman}} can one of you restore the revisions to the archive? <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The history is at ]. ] (]) 15:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::Derp.... I went off of your edit at ] ;) /me goes back to sleep <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 16:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ] (]) | |||
| == Block notice == | |||
| :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. ] (]) 11:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Sadly, I have now blocked you for 24 hours for disruptive editing. You technically still can edit this page, and thus reinstate the redirect. This will only lead to the removal of your talk page access as well, so please don't. | |||
| Regarding , I do not see that it applies in this case. The kiss is the main reason this couple is ]. 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 case -- making the image the lead image -- is the solution. This is per what I stated with edit. Furthermore, whether or not to keep this image was discussed before; see ]. The consensus was to keep the image. I suggest you put it up for another ] if you want it deleted. ] (]) 03:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| You were given plenty of chances to discuss this, but only replied by reinstating your preferred but for others clearly unacceptable situation. This is disruptive editing. Your user talk page is not your property to do with like you please, it is a place for other editors to contact you. Making this deliberately much harder is not something that can be accepted. ] (]) 15:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Maybe we could back away from the cliff == | |||
| 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 ] (]) 15:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| HW, if I unblock you, and move your talk page back here temporarily as a gesture of respect, can I assume you'll discuss this at WP:AN, and will abide by whatever consensus forms there? That way you could have some control over how it is resolved. --] (]) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|Denisarona}} Seems like your edit was caught up in the revert of edit; notice how in Hullaballoo's edit summary it says "Reverted 2 pending edits {{em|by 63.144.52.250}} and". ] (], ]) 10:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually it says: Reverted 2 pending edits by 63.144.52.250 and Denisarona to revision 897786156 by JDuggan101: ''nonconstructive removal of sourced claim''. ] (]) 14:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : Sorry, Flo, you doing that action would be disputed. Please discuss it first. If you are right, I'm sure you are eloquent enough to generate a consensus for your proposal. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Page blanking == | |||
| ::No, Fram said he was OK with another admin doing it at AN. And you handled this poorly, contributing to the dysfunction. --] (]) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, Fram said ''if it seems likely that he'll stop redirecting his talk page of course'' - Not an agreement to restore the disputed talk page here, unblock him, and then ask him to discuss it at AN. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I have reverted your edits on ], ], ], ], ] and ], Please use Afd to gain a consensus, not just arbitrarily delete based on your personal viewpoint. --] (]) 16:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree with your proposed admin action. The dysfunction is that the editor is using his talk page in a way that prevents others from communicating with him. You are welcome to disagree with me, but you should not use sysop access in furtherance of a disagreement. Go to ] and generate a consensus to unblock the editor. That will provide an opportunity perhaps to discover the best way forward. Your judgement is not better than everybody elses'. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| Dear God in Heaven, you people are morons. You enjoy this, don't you? You enjoy escalating shit, and pissing all over any attempt to deescalate. This conversation is between HW and me, and if he agrees then I'm going to do this, and if you want to whine about it somewhere, that will be fine. Shame on you. And yes, in this case, my judgement is better than yours, because I'm trying to help, and you're trying to enforce. --] (]) 16:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Woah! First of all, you're assuming bad faith, and you're being condescending. I tried getting Hull to open up and talk about why he was opposed, and he kept edit warring to restore his talk page. '''He''' chose his actions, not me, not Jehochman. I understand that you're trying to deescalate, but you can't unliaterally go against consensus that's developed at AN. All Jehochman is asking for you to do is see if the there's a consensus to revert, unblock, and ''then'' try and discuss with HW. FWIW, I'm deeply offended that you're insinuating that I think this is a great thing to happen. The '''last thing''' anyone wanted here was for HW to be blocked. No wonder this community is going to shit with all this bad faith. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> --] (]) 06:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| : I've unwatched this page. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Guys, yes the talk page was getting to be a problem. But talking it out over days rather than barging in and just changing it would have been a much better call. It isn't like it's some new emergency--it's been years. Let Floq and HW see if they can't find a reasonable way forward. ] (]) 17:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **While I appreciate your comments and Floquenbeam's, no reasonable response from me is going to matter. This was obviously an out-of-process put-up job designed to discredit and remove a "troublesome" editor whose adherence to and enforcement of policies makes a certain claque of administrators/editors uncomfortable. | |||
| Note that | |||
| #The AN discussion was initiated by an editor who I had little or no prior interaction with, and who had made no attempt at substantive discussion of the issues with me. That normally precludes resorting to the drama boards. | |||
| #The editor who initiated the AN discussion then canvassed eight users, just about all of whom have engaged in disputes with me over various issues, but not editors who had expressed similar concerns but who were usually on the same "side" as I was in BLP disputes. It is remarkable, to say the least, that Technical 13 somehow managed to select the two admins whose closes I recently supported overturning in currently-active discussions at DRV and one editor whose current DRV proposals I've opposed . Even more remarkably, the editor managed to search my supposedly difficult-to-handle talk page, find all of these users to canvass, and post to WP:AN in about 15 minutes. It is certainly reasonable to suspect this enterprise was set up in advance, and I see no reason to doubt it. | |||
| #There have been roughly 200 posts to the talk page in the last 90 days or so. That hardly is consistent with the claim that I "effectively disable his talk page by letting it get so large it will not load reliably". | |||
| #Despite my running an old OS (Windows XP) and using a notoriously lousy but, in my area, unavoidable ISP, I don't have any trouble accessing the talk page, even if I'm not logged in. The only time I had trouble was when the stinking Visual Editor was active. I suspect that many of the editors who actually have problems have editing "enhancements", scripts, gadgets, addons, browser extensions whatever, that subtly degrade their performance. When some editors report no serious problems and others report dysfunction, it is more likely that the problem's root cause is not the source page. I often have problems getting userspace pages including media files to load readily, and I'm not the only one, but I don't demand that everybody else restrict their pages to fit my idiosyncracies. | |||
| #I'm often in disputes here with publicists, promoters, and other folks who try to use Misplaced Pages as an internet marketing tool. I note that the summary disputed action here was taken buy a guy in the internet marketing business. That really smells. There's no way around it. | |||
| #I've also often been used as a poster child for admin abuse by commenters at Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy, after a particularly atrocious admin blocked me for a comment made by another editor, refused to block the editor who made the comment, and refused to unblock after Checkuser confirmed no association with the other editor. That incident has led to a disproportionate number of conflicts with admins and editors who are hostile toward those sites, as well as a lack of deference on my part to administrative "authority". And some of what's happening here looks to be payback. And I'm sick and tired of Wolfowitz-only rules here, like being told I can't use the phrase "convicted criminal" to describe an actual convicted criminal, while allowing the article subject's girlfriend to use the same phrase to describe someone who was not convicted (or even charged with) any crime. You can't make stuff like that up. | |||
| #I clearly wasn't given anything like a reasonable opportunity to respond. I was notified about the AN discussion at about 1AM my time last night, saw nothing calling for an immediate response, and decided to wait until morning to see how things were sorting out. At the time Jehochman acted, there clearly was no consensus for his action (which he technically botched to begin with). As the length of this response indicates, acting without giving me a chance to respond was utterly uncalled for. | |||
| *If you want to post any or all of this to ], {{reply to|Hobit}}, feel free. But this was a planned lynching, and I don't expect fair treatment in response; that's why I haven't posted an unblock request. It won't be the first time. Could be the last, though. ] (]) 20:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *:Thank you for taking the time to respond Hullaballoo. Would you mind telling us why you're ''opposed'' to the requests to archive your page, and what, if anything, you would rather happen? I'll post this to the AN thread, if that's okay. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 21:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| **Read items 3 and 4, which directly address the threshold question. It's obvious from the responses that already show up at AN, though, that I wouldn't have received a fair hearing even had I responded instantly. And why didn't you post it in the appropriate, initial section? ] (]) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ***: There was no smooth place to post your reply, so I made it it's own section. It shows others that you have replied and gives a spotlight to what you're saying, which is important for the overall discussion. <span style="font-family: MV Boli;">]]</span> 21:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Regarding Flickr image== | |||
| ::::I'd recommend that you ''don't'' revert the archiving of your talkpage, when your 24hr-block expires. Trust me, a combative nature isn't going to help. It's a lesson that I've learned these last 2+ yrs. ] (]) 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!<br> | |||
| *HW, perhaps we are BLP enemies (are we?), but here's some serious advice: they archived your talk page because it was absurdly long. If this is a vendetta against you, it is a very dumb one, and one you should ignore. If you're going to get intentionally blocked by reverting edits, let's make it over something really worthwhile to you!--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 22:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| 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? --<span style="color:ccc; padding:2px 4px;">Gpkp<small style="color:#555"> ''(<span style="padding:0 2px">] • ] • ]</span>)''</small></span> 09:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 10:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| HW, I don't think you and I have ever had a conflict, and FWIW I agree with everyone else that you should archive your talk page as a sign of respect for people trying to leave you messages (It took me quite a while to load your archived talk page this morning). I just don't agree with the way it was handled. I recognize some sensible people in that AN thread, so it's not '''all''' enemies. | |||
| :: Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --<span style="color:ccc; padding:2px 4px;">Gpkp<small style="color:#555"> ''(<span style="padding:0 2px">] • ] • ]</span>)''</small></span> 12:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| You don't have to ask, I'll unblock you now as (at least) a token of de-escalation. Especially since it isn't preventing you from doing what you were blocked for, and because it's easier for you to post to AN than to have someone transfer your comments. | |||
| So where do you want to go from here? What reasonable outcome do you want to see? I'm pretty sure the page is going to end up getting archived, reading the writing on the wall, but it makes no sense for this to happen without your input on '''how'''. If it makes you more willing to discuss it, I'll move it back here until a final decision is reached, but that's admittedly just symbolic; barring an unforeseen development I can't imagine it staying that way forever. Do you want to archive it a different way? Or argue for not archiving it at AN? Or do you want to cut your losses and move on? Also, I note that while your comments above explain why you don't think it should have to be archived, it doesn't explain why you actually object to it being archived. Is it just a matter of not wanting busybodies telling you what to do, or is there more to it? --] (]) 22:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * {{Ec|2}}Some responses here as the editor who raised the issue in the first place. I'm guessing you feel like you are being "strong-armed" with "mob tactics", and since I'm aware of the fact that you've had multiple other conflicts (you're not alone in that), I'm not going to assume you are unjustified in thinking so. | |||
| : As you mention in your first bullet point, {{Xt|The AN discussion was initiated by an editor who I had little or no prior interaction with}}, which means to me that you acknowledge the fact that I'm not here "just another member of the mob". I'll point out that I'm not an administrator (don't honestly want to be one at this point) and I'm ''usually'' on the other end of the stick (that everyone keeps telling me to ]). You seem to be complaining that I did not first try to discuss it with you before heading over to AN, and the reason I did not initiate further discussion with you on the topic before heading over to AN was that I was technically incapable of directly editing your user page; the only reason I managed to add the AN notice was because I did it through the API via Twinkle. | |||
| : In your second bullet, you accuse me of ] eight other users, and based on your {{Xt|just about all of whom have engaged in disputes with me over various issues}} statement, you seem to think I did it to stack the deck against you only notifying people who you've had disputes with in the past. I'll say that I notified exactly nine people of the discussion at AN, yourself and the eight people who I linked to their requests on your user talk page for archival over the last nearly five years now. I notified them, because an action that they had performed involved them in the discussion when I linked those revisions. There was no other reason or motive behind it and I have no idea who you have or haven't had disputes with in the past, nor do I much care. | |||
| : In the third bullet, you mention how 200 posts have been made to your talk page in the last 90 days. I'm not sure what your point in making that comment was suppose to be considering your page was too large 50 months ago and way way too large as much as a year ago. This is something that should have been done long ago and consistently. | |||
| : You mention that your system and connection are lousy in your fourth point, and that you have no troubles loading your page. You then try to shift the blame to gadgets, userscripts, beta features claiming that it's not your fault if people can't communicate with you because they choose to use those features. I'll tell you that on my {{Noping|ShoeMaker}} test account, using nothing but wiki default settings and the monobook skin (I think that's what it is called), and a decent computer with a 15Mb cable connection, I still couldn't access your talk page and make a successful save (I keep getting the Wikimedia Error window). So, blaming the software just isn't going to fly for me. | |||
| : As for the remainder of your bullet points, those seem to me to be out of context of what my goal was in starting the AN discussion in the first place. You seem to have taken a lot of stuff personally (and I'm not sure I blame you, I've felt very similar at times), and you've let that effect your judgement. For me it is simply a technical issue,l nothing more, nothing less. If you and {{U|Floquenbeam}} can reach an effective agreement for an archiving scheme that is reasonable for everyone and Floq wishes to end the block early based on that, then I entirely support that. I hope that you can resolve this quickly, and get back to happily editing! — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 22:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not hardly convincing. You give no explanation of why you decided to personalize this; you cited only one complaint in the last two years beside your own, which to a reasonable person would signal that you ought to consider it's not a major problem, and might well be at your end, you don't make any attempt to explain the remarkable correlation between the open DRVs and the selective list of editors to WP:CANVASS, you had no good reason to open an out-of-place discussion at AN rather than at the Village Pump (policy decisions and "technical decisions" aren't reserved for admins), leaving only the inference that your real interest was provoking action against me. And, frankly, if you don't believe the many recent posts to my talk page are signals that the problems you claim to be concerned with don't seem to affect most users, and in turn that the problems may well be at your end, than your technical competence is likely lower than you believe it is. ] (]) 00:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's just an unnecessary hassle to have to scroll down through a long talk page, the standard convention is to archive it, and a bunch of folks asked you to. So why the stubborn antisocial behavior? <small>]</small> 01:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Why the antisocial behavior? I'm practicing to be an admin! (rimshot) I would find it a bigger hassle to have to rummage through the large set of archives that would result from the standard archiving practices. I'm sick and tired of the Wolfowitz-only rules that get applied to me. No other editor was subjected to being blocked for actions taken by a different editor, even though that editor was not blocked or even warned. The editor who did this wasn't sanctioned or warned in any way as long as I was seen as their main target. On and on, over and over. I don't believe that this dispute was initiated in good faith; the initiator hasn't given any remotely credible explanation of how they came to be involved; the improper CANVASSing was quite apparent, the discussion clearly never approached consensus, and yet summary action was taken for no reason beyond "Oh, fuck Wolfowitz, he's unmutual". As the late Mr Vonnegut would say, "The fix is in". ] (]) 05:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's hardly a Wolfowitz only rule; it's right in ] "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." One of the commenters on AN made a similar request to another editor three days ago . You were first asked over four years ago . Part of being a member of a community is following conventions simply because they are conventions. <small>]</small> 12:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You may be naive enough to believe that, but it's utter bullshit. The AN complaint that started was obviously pretextual, brought in violation of the prescribed procedures at AN, not to mention those "standard conventions" you want to rely on. And it was improperly ], obviously and clumsily. But that's OK, because it's Wolfowitz. This wasn't about the talk page, even if you believe it was. "Part of being a member of a community is following conventions simply because they are conventions"? Nonsense. Part of being a member of a community is recognizing and accepting that communities are diverse, that different styles and opinions are legitimate, and that there's nothing wrong with being "unconventional". I got a few complaints a year about the talk page, mostly from editors pushing their side in active disputes -- and the fact that I have about as active a talk page as non-admins have puts the lie to the claim that the page significantly impeded communication. It's been open season on Wolfowitz here this year: It's OK for a paid publicist to make phony accusations of racism without consequences ; a venomous troll bent on defaming an article subject was allowed to continue so long as the only editor she harassed was Wolfowitz . If you're going to join a lynching party, don't expect the guest of honor to appreciate your lovely choice of rope. ] (]) 14:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::* The only one personalizing this has been you. I didn't cite only one complaint other than my own, I listed eight of them, including my own (), which to a reasonable person would signal that you ought to consider it is a major problem. There was a different editor for each one of those various requests for you to archive your talk page (using many various methods from starting a discussion on your talk page, to setting up a bot for you, to marking the page with the {{Tl|Archiveme}} template), those are the editors I pinged. Your repeated refusal to ] over the last five years indicated to me that there needed to be a discussion on a noticeboard that dealt with such issues. If I had gone to ], then I would certainly agree that it would have been out of place; however, I went to ] which seemed like an appropriate place and the resulting discussion and consensus seems to confirm. As for your last comment there, you are certainly more than welcome to ]. — <span class="nowrap">{{U|]}} <sup>(] • ] • ])</sup></span> 02:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::*You're working hard to demonstrate your lack of good faith. First of all, you've blatantly misquoted me. I said one complaint '''in the last two years''' besides your own. An average of one complaint a year, roughly, would not indicate a major problem, especially when so many of them came from editors on the opposite sides of disputes. There were a few that you didn't cite, but you carefully avoid explaining the fact that you went out of your to spot and improperly WP:CANVASS editors you expected to be hostile to me. Hell, your technically deficient signature may well do more to degrade performance across the project. ] (]) 03:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *Dear God, this talk page is going to be as long as it was if we keep on with these long responses.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 22:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can we all please get on with the task in hand, not bickering over a page that, frankly, is for constructive discussion? The page has been archived, and the block removed, so there doesn't appear to be anything else constructive to happen here. Let's get back to improving the encyclopedia, which will be good however you look at it. --]]<small>]</small> 18:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::"We've screwed you over, now get back to doing what we tell you" is not a communication that furthers improvement of the encyclopedia. This obviously isn't about the talk page, or about policy or guideline, but about slapping down an editor who is seen as sufficiently deferential to a claque of editors/admins. ] (]) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you meant ''insufficiently''. But fixing it might mean deferring to the claque... will the problems never end? ] (]) 20:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::::HW, you're only making things worst for yourself, by being combative. Don't make the mistakes that I've made in 2011, 2012 & 2013. ] (]) 20:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, you're right about the canvassing; total ]. Which means, if we discount the canvassed editors on AN, there really wasn't consensus for anything. (My ''personal'' opinion remains unchanged, but obviously that doesn't mean very much.) So the question is -- what do you want to do about it? I closed the AN thread as much to stop the HW bashing as anything else, and it's unclear to me whether re-opening would make things better or worse. Let me know if you want me to re-open the discussion. <small>]</small> 20:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| *For the record I largely agree with NE Ent here. I feel this whole thing moved way (way) too fast and amounted to bullying. But the page was a (small) problem and probably needed to be addressed (from my home computer I'd tried to edit the old page and it took about 30 seconds to load but I've an old/crappy computer and a slow connection). I'd urge you to let it go as there really isn't anything more to be done. I hate letting people bully me (to the point of becoming irrational) so I get that might not be so easy to do. ] (]) 01:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a website ... it is what it is. You're not blocked. Go do what you want to do. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 02:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == About all that bother == | |||
| Sorry about the recent railroading you got over at AN/I. Your talk page ''was'' too long but what was imposed on you was way outside of policy and precedent. They're getting awfully aggressive over at the AN shop these days. ] (]) 07:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :Absolutely outrageous; but, heh. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 14:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == FYI == | |||
| There is a report, initiated by me, at ] reguarding some of your recent edits. I'm going to see if there is any edit warring by the other side as well, and if so, I'll move this to a different venue, or report them too as appropriate. --]]<small>]</small> 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == CSD tag removal == | |||
| Please stop. ] is most certainly unremarkable. A quick Google search shows no reliable sources. Brollos also may not be notable, but I haven't translated the articles I found. Please do not remove these tags- that is an administrator's job.] (]) 20:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :It is evident you have no proper understanding of speedy deletion policy. Any editor, other than the page creator, may remove a speedy tag. You have been blitz-tagging new articles, mostly from new editors, without allowing their creators to finish writing them. Your tags are too often substantively wrong as well -- tagging ] with A7 was just plain atrocious since the article undeniably asserted not just significance but notability, and it was plain as day that the creator was still working on it. ] (]) 20:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Pamela Gordon== | |||
| What I was doing was adding accurate information found on her article on Playboy One. | |||
| :No, what you were doing was adding unsourced breast/cup sizes to women's bios, mostly BLPs/ ] (]) 00:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ::The information was taken directly from each woman's article on Playboy Online, I was simply adding information about the person. | |||
| ==Just a comment from a passerby== | |||
| First of all I am not a big editor like many of you all, most of my edits have been spelling and punctuation errors. Second I don't know all the rules of Misplaced Pages, but I try my best to not be a bother to others, and I never believe I am the so called "final authority" on any subject. I am here to help and am interested in seeing articles provide the 'proper' and 'correct' information for the folks who read them (ignorance is due mainly to lack of information). This all being said...I find it very interesting that in recent days all the editors who have "corrected" me on any small faults or errors of mine, have themselves been guilty of making grave errors and been blocked or otherwise brought into check by the Administrators. You sir, from reading your Talk page, seem to have made several bad mistakes and made a number of people upset. | |||
| Now, the article on ] I was editing and expanding, and was NOT finished yet working on. And yet you in your wisdom came and deleted my revisions and reverted it back to its original form. The information I gathered I TOOK directly off the main and proper source for any bio information on said person, her former employer Playboy Magazine. The bio information I was correcting on several Playmates, IF you would check, was taken off a website NOT affiliated with Playboy and several things were incorrect (cup size, weight, etc.). | |||
| Now I DO NOT appreciate people who "think" they know better swooping down and changing things when my intention is simply to correct information. I have noticed in Misplaced Pages several editors who seem to prowl the website just waiting for somebody to make a mistake, then they pounce. What should be done is the editor explains the mistake and gives the person the chance to make corrections THEMSELVES. | |||
| But sir, to you and ALL other editors who wish to correct any mistakes I make, PLEASE have the decency to tell me and give me the opportunity to make my own corrections. | |||
| :'''GO THE HELL AWAY'''. You are obviously trolling me. You have been editing here since 2005; you have nearly 7 thousand edits, and you plainly are on notice of such central policies as ], ], and ]. You're nevertheless complaining because I've been removing unreferenced, poorly referenced, incorrectly referenced, and unsourced claims you've been inserting into articles without substantive discussion. And despite your puling about using "the main and proper source" about ], this three-stage edit,, adding the vital encyclopedic text "She is best known for being one of the largest breasted Playboy Playmates of the 1980s", is actually referenced to a message board archive -- and no post on that page remotely supports the claim you make, despite the contributions of such noted authorities on popular culture as "Milkmaniac", "DruulEmpire", "cboobs", "r2d2", and the renowned academic authority "Loverofbigtits". ] (]) 18:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Seasonal Greets! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. <br> | |||
| Happy editing,<br> | |||
| <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 18:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.}}'' | |||
| |} | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Thanks == | == Thanks == | ||
| I appreciate your citing the WP NFC guideline. I won't be making that mistake again. Cheers! -- ] (]) 22:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for removing my CSD tag on the 5sos page and ]. I now realize I shouldn't have tagged either of them. ] ] 21:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for May 28== | |||
| == Thanks! == | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small> | |||
| I was mostly wary of the change because it was from an anon IP and made no attempt to explain its removal. Cheers, ] ] 00:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == December 2014 == | |||
| ] ] to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a ] tag from ], a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: '''Contest this speedy deletion''' and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case '''''on the article's ]'''''. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-speedy1 --> ] (]) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Could you please be more careful... == | |||
| ] Please do not remove ] notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with ]. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: '''Contest this speedy deletion''', which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case '''''on the article's ]'''''. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-speedy2 --> ] (]) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :I know what you're doing is in good faith, but if you have concerns with deletion of an article, contest with the deletion according to the tag. Don't remove it. — ] (]) 21:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| ::]. Anyone but the page creator can remove a speedy tag, and you know I'm not the page creator, because you've put a notice on their talk pag.e three times. Your insistence on reinstating a declined speedy approaches the abusive. ] (]) 21:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ! you wrote || notes | |||
| :::] is not policy, and if you want me to stop placing the tag, What criteria gives you the right to remove the tag? Then I will stop — ] (]) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| Sorry, I need to apologize to you has you were on the right. I should have given more time for the editor to expand the article. I try to delete articles ASAP with no sources and little to no content. I'v been through many heated discussions lately through my mistakes or just too aggressive towards other editors over little simple edits. This time it's an obvious mistake I made, and I should have consulted with you and the creator of the article. My apologies and have a Merry Christmas! Cheers! — ] (]) 22:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| | , for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot; || | |||
| : Wrong. | |||
| == Did I really bite? == | |||
| # He saw a video made by someone playing the game; | |||
| # he took a screenshot; | |||
| Hello. Regarding your comment at of ], I'm not sure I bit anyone (let alone so hard as to justify mentioning God). Given that it was the first time I've used the speedy deletion option (not being the most experienced of users myself), can you please explain what my mistake has been? I admit it did not cross my mind that the user's intention was to create an article instead of a template. Was I supposed to? (Please check my notice on ] first.) Thanks! ] (]) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| # and he tweeted a request for the actual game. | |||
| :Well, yes, you should have thought of that; and, even if your assumption was correct, the appropriate action would have been to transfer the faux-template to draftspace, because stashing text an editor is working on is hardly something we discourage here. ] (]) 21:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy Holidays! == | |||
| == Seasonal Greets! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| | 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. || | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| * 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 , where I linked to a made by someone playing that version of the game. That video is 294 seconds long. The screenshot used to illustrate ] 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. | |||
| '''Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. <br> | |||
| |- | |||
| Happy editing,<br> | |||
| | There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent. || | |||
| ] (]) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| * might be time for some new spectacles. | |||
| |- | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
| | (it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale) || | |||
| * The video portion of 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. | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| <small>Sent by ] (]) on behalf of {{U|{{Noping|Technical 13}}}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on ]</small> | |||
| :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... -- ] (]) 13:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Technical 13@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Technical_13/Holiday_list&oldid=639096433 --> | |||
| :* {{U|Ferret}}, I've crossed paths with Hullaballoo multiple times, over multiple years. My conclusions are: | |||
| :# Hullaballoo is genuinely well-intentioned, is genuinely convinced that his or her edits will improve the wikipedia; | |||
| :# 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. | |||
| :# I believe Hullaballoo is genuinely unaware of how abrasive they can be. | |||
| :# 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. <p>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 ]. 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 ] | |||
| :* What makes me think Hullaballoo can't acknowledge mistakes? Well, his or her behavior at ], for one. I uploaded ] in 2008. Hullaballoo in 2017, with the edit summary ''"nonfree image in BLP infobox"'''. <p>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. <p>A year later Hullaballoo , again. This time their edit summary was ''"nonfree lede image in BLP"''. <p>I applaud administrator {{U|Ronhjones}} closing comment at ]. 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. ] (]) 17:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == You have been mentioned in an ANI thread == | |||
| == Non-free images at ] == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| FYI: ]. ] (]) 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Natlalya Murashkevich == | ||
| Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Misplaced Pages 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? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hi there. I'm considering proposing speedy deletion of ] again; last time I did this, you removed the template with the comment "article includes a credible claim of significance, which is a lower standard than notability". I'm not entirely familiar with the policies for speedy deletion, but I dispute that this player (if he even exists) is significant: he has never played a match for a professional team and there's no mention of him on the Oxford United official website, and no hits on Google except relating to this article. As such he surely fails ]. All substantive edits to the article are by the same user, ], who has not edited any other article and did not respond to a note on his talk page about this. The first version of the article had a Soccerbase reference that referred to a completely different player (]). I'm not convinced this Brian Jerome even exists, and even if he does he's surely not significant (whatever that means). No other youth player at Oxford has an article, unless they've played for the first team in a competitive match. ] (]) 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}} Hi {{u|Sp00n exe}}. Each Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on non-free content use it, but English Misplaced Pages's is ], 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 Misplaced Pages. Generally, as explained in ], non-free images of still living persons are not going to be allowed per ]; there might be some exceptions to this as explained in item #1 of ], 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.{{pb}} The file you were trying to use (]) was removed by Hullaballo Wolfowitz, but it was actually deleted by an administrator named {{u|Explicit}} per ]; it's important to note that the deletion was per WP:F7, not ]. 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. -- ] (]) 23:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :So BLP-PROD the article; it doesn't sound like an obvious enough hoax to speedy. ] (]) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks – it seems someone else has already done it, albeit on slightly different grounds. ] (]) 12:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==FYI== | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that your post at ] 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. ]|] 18:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Bernie Dresel image== | |||
| Hey HW, when you made this and left the Edit summary "inaccurate", we're you saying that the content added is or is not accurate? When I saw it, but did not see a new source added and without an edit summary, I rejected it as a ] list item for review. Regards, --] ] ☮ღ☺ 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Dear HW, | |||
| :I said, plain as day, you were inaccurate. ] (]) 21:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ] page. Please check this to make sure it is right. Of all things that I've uploaded or created on Misplaced Pages (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. | |||
| ::Hmmm... OK, so you are claiming that the content is supported by a source? I guess I'll go check that. I guess it also goes without saying that you don't consider that statement "spam" or "trivia" or "fan cruft" then. Regards, --] ] ☮ღ☺ 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggest you restrict your inferences to what I say rather than comments about what I didn't say, although why you would suggest that statements in articles about a Daesh terrorist are "fan cruft" is weirdly disturbing. ] (]) 23:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, if you stated what you meant in a clearer manner, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As for what does or does not disturb you, I know you have some biases, but I'm trying harder to not judge so harshly of late. In the future, I'll note that you draw a distinction between porn stars and terrorists when it comes to their BLP articles and what you consider acceptable content. It just seems strange that you think porn stars are less worthy of "humanizing". You also used to have more consistency, but its good to see that you're fallible after all... :) Regards, --] ] ☮ღ☺ 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You two certainly make a great couple. Can I make an observation or two? I'll try to be fair. has the Messi thing, so it's not unsourced. I'm not sure why you didn't see that Scalhotrod, unless it is because, and this is certainly possible, there is SO much text with that one reference all the way at the end. If that's the case, that's fine--it's over now. Hullabaloo, I do agree that "inaccurate" is really not helpful; I suppose you meant it to mean "yes it is in the source, duh". Please do us all a favor next time and be overexplicit, OK?<p>Both of you are valued contributors. You've been here some time. You have experience. We need you around. So please keep it together and make that extra step. Please. ] (]) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You may seem him as a valued contributor; I view him as a guy who trolls and harasses editors he's in content disputes with. I've been one of Chrris's favorite targets since I raised issues involving his COI, promotional, and copyvio editing nearly two years ago. I can't see a guy who's egged on trolls like "Carriearchdale" and Benjiboi socks in efforts to harassment, who's endorsed "appalling" bad faith accusations of racism in an AFD discussion, and who has made groundless personal attacks like this in edit summaries , and who's just come off a lengthy topic ban for similar misbehavior as someone who should be valued. This is a typical example of attempting to dialog with Chris when he's in trolling mode, as he usually is with me, and I'm not going to waste time cater to his unreasonable and disruptive preferences. ] (]) 00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, how about this: you write better and more accurate edit summaries to appease the poor schmucks who sometimes attempt to make peace between editors in order to let this joint run more smoothly? ] (]) 01:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Given that Scalhotrod has just gone out of his way to insult me as "inane" and "biased" here , where he also claims that my reference to the AFD for the ] was so vague he couldn't find ], I don't think the supposed defects in my edit summary had anything to do with his response. A week or so ago, he attacked my removal of unsourced claims that named living people were involved with human-animal porn as BLP zealotry, which is hardly a claim a reasonable, good faith editor would make. If you want to keep the peace, cracking down on editors who go out of their way to break it would be a better starting point than let the wookkiee win has been. ] (]) 02:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::At the risk of belaboring the point, ''I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about me''. Your edit summary was lousy, and that's all there is to it; no amount of stewing over your opponent's shortcomings is going to change that, and all I'm asking, sweet Jesus!, is that you be more clear next time. That's all, and now I am going to sign off and stay away. ] (]) 02:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for your help! | |||
| == Regarding the ] page == | |||
| ] (]) 11:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :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 ]. Misplaced Pages-limited permission is not sufficient. ] (]) 12:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Objection == | |||
| A piece of commercial fluff about slapping a few boxes on a ruralized soccer-mom transporter. What, exactly, is there to keep here, and why would it be notable even if it were true? And why, even if it were notable, would it be worth devoting so many words to it? I say it's spinach, and I say to hell with it.] (]) 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :And none of that justifies bypassing the standard deletion process, especially since you clearly acknowledge that the primary issue is notability. ] (]) 17:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I'd say a bigger issue is that it is so factually inaccurate and fluff-ridden that, if cleaned up, it would not even make a decent stub. Go through and mentally blue-pencil the lies and the sales puffery ("...but I repeat myself.") Then add that it is a one-off editor who has linked it to every possible connection he can imagine. If that ain't deletable, what is?] (]) 17:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I object to your characterization of my good faith nomination of ], 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. ] (]) 15:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Donetsk== | |||
| :And I would appreciate a hot night of passion with the young Diana Rigg. But it ain't gonna happen.] (]) 18:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I'm aware of the disruptive editing from the other party. ''']''' (]) 20:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Reference Errors on 19 January == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows: | |||
| *On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( | ) | |||
| Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can . | |||
| Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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.--] (]) 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Personal attack == | |||
| :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? ] (]) 18:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Please stop personal attack and respect ]. You do not understand something in my action? You can ask. | |||
| ::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 ] 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. ] (]) 20:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *why I created a notification of SPI? Because user Раціональне анархіст aka Pax and Redban and its sockpuppets has very similar behavior, on several levels. Not just me this noticed. SPI came out well, because the sockpuppet of Redban caught. | |||
| ::*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). ] (]) 02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *why drew attention to the topic ban? because (still) I think that topic ban has been broken, topic ban is "''about or related to pornography''", this page AfD is relate to pornography because involves the removal of pornographic actor. For me is simple: "''about or related to <u>pornography</u>''" and AfD about <u>pornographic</u> actor, so. | |||
| <span class="unicode" style="white-space:nowrap;">]<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;">]<br/><abbr class="abbr" title="intermediate level of English" {{#if:|lang="{{{3}}}"}}><small>(en-2)</small></abbr></span></span> 19:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :He hasn't made any personal attacks or assumed bad faith where none was in evidence. You, on the other hand, have.] 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Shane Diesel deletion review == | |||
| 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 ]. At the same time, this might be considered one of the exemptions to NFCC#1 mentioned in item 1 of ] 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 {{tl|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? -- ] (]) 06:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] whose AfD you recently participated in has been restored pending deletion review.] 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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 could be established, it would likely be free. ] (]) 10:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :: 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 ] with perhaps the character image being used in the body of the article. Do you think the page should be moved to ] though ] is a similar type of article?{{pb}} As for the date of the photo you found, I did find . 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 {{tl|PD-US-no notice}} would work. -- ] (]) 05:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Gossip related. == | |||
| == A bowl of strawberries for you! == | |||
| Is this part also need to be removed? Sources, a Radio station website. | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, thanks for your sensible keep at ]. I have instigated a speedy keep and incorporated the reviews in ] article. | |||
| ] (]) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| "Cabello started dating English dating coach Matthew Hussey in February 2018" | |||
| ==rabbitsreviews.com== | |||
| I see you removed a number of links to rabbitsreviews.com, and it looks like most have been restored and more added since. I started a discussion with ], and Scalhotrod jumped in right away. Is there past discussion on this or similar problems? --] (]) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :And he's back. Let's get this settled. These long-term edit-wars in BLPs shouldn't be happening. --] (]) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Camila_Cabello ] (]) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Wizkid (musician) == | |||
| :Probably, but even more important, the specific claim isn't supported by the reference. ] (]) 12:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| I reverted your edit to the Wizkid (musician) article because it didn't make sense. You can't say "no current source" when the section is well sourced. If you have a problem with the section, take it to the noticeboards. You can't removed sections on Misplaced Pages without consensus. '''] '''</font></big>] 22:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Amanda Cerny == | ||
| One user has messed up redirection for the page ]. As you have worked on that page previously, can you take a look? Thanks ] (]) 10:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Since edit summaries seem to be going out of vogue, could you explain why you removed the rape info from the Cytherea article? <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Because the content had already been disputed by another user, apparently under BLP, then restored without discussion by an IP-SPA; because the sourcing really doesn't satisfy BLP requirements; and because the curious selection of references appeared designed to ridicule/embarrass a third party with only a tenuous connection to the article subject. ] (]) 18:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. <span style="font-family:monospace;">]</span>|] 19:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Photo of Earl Chudoff == | ||
| 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 Misplaced Pages article, and is listed as being from the Pennsylvania Legislature and being "fair use": https://en.wikipedia.org/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? ] (]) 01:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz! I'm helping ] learn more about how to edit Misplaced Pages as part of an Art and Feminism edit-a-thon today, and I saw that you reverted several of their edits with the summary "dubious sourcing and lousy writing". That's an unfortunately insulting and potentially discouraging edit summary, especially for good-faith edits by a person who is relatively inexperienced (as you can check from their contributions history); please be more neutral and polite when describing problems with another person's work. It would also be helpful for the quality of this article to point out the problems more specifically - which sentences in those edits do you think need work? Which references need to be improved? Thank you. ] (]) 00:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please read ]. 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.] (]) 01:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Scott Williams (artist) == | ||
| Hello | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at and then within , , and . Although no 3 of your reverts were within a 24-hour period, that seems to have been only because I'm not editing Misplaced Pages long enough in a single day. The article's ], I think, addresses every issue you have raised or touched on and the talk page shows the consensus already reached. Please respond there for each point on which you disagree and wish to reopen consensus. Simply repeating charges that have already been refuted is not helpful. The content being deleted from the article is not only due weight, it is notable; and, in either case, is thus reportable in Misplaced Pages. Editing that preserves the essential content is welcome but I don't know what that editing would be, so please propose it and/or edit accordingly. At least, edit selectively; you've never explained why you think the gun having been purchased (which is sourced) should be described in the lead as only having been acquired (a weasel word) and regarding your most recent edit you did not explain your opposition to the recent minor correction of spacing nor acknowledge that I am not an SPA or have a COI even though I think we resolved that issue long ago and I'm the one who wrote most of the content in question. Please participate in discussion. Thank you very kindly.]] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Scott_Williams_(artist) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| :Wikpedia is dedicated to using free media, rather than non-free. See ]. 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. ] (]) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| *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. ] (]) 12:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Mark Pritchard == | |||
| I have no idea how this article wound up on my watchlist, but could you explain what or who 'the bucket' is? --] (]) 03:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==]== | ||
| 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.] (]) 19:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 02:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 00:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ==Non-free rationale for File:Booknewsun.jpg== | |||
| ] | |||
| Thanks for uploading or contributing to ''']'''. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under ], but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages is acceptable. Please go to ], and edit it to include a ]. | |||
| == ] photos == | |||
| If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "]" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on ]. If the file is already gone, you can still make a ] and ask for a chance to fix the problem.<!-- Template:You can request undeletion --> If you have any questions, please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-no fair use rationale-notice --> ] (]) 15:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Do you think there's a chance that ] and ] are possibly {{tl|PD-US-no notice}}? If or {{tl|PD-US-not renewed}}. If not, then neither file's non-free use seems NFCCP compliant. -- ] (]) 08:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == TWL HighBeam check-in == | |||
| :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. ] (]) 12:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. -- ] (]) 01:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process == | |||
| Hello Misplaced Pages Library Users, | |||
| Hello! | |||
| You are receiving this message because the Misplaced Pages Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access: | |||
| 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 ] that followed ] you’ve been part of. | |||
| *Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at ]. | |||
| *Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see ] | |||
| *Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources. | |||
| Please fill out 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 . This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic. | |||
| Thank you. | |||
| <small>Sent by ] (]) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:HighBeam/Check_in/List&oldid=655575856 --> | |||
| Thank you for your participation, ] 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Newspapers.com check-in == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Trizek (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=User:Trizek_(WMF)/sandbox/temp_MassMessage_list&oldid=19553910 --> | |||
| == ArbCom 2019 election voter message == | |||
| Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Misplaced Pages Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access: | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| *Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know. | |||
| *Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Misplaced Pages users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips . | |||
| *Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out . Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Misplaced Pages Library can offer. | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=926750292 --> | |||
| ==Season's Greetings== | |||
| Misplaced Pages Library Newspapers.com account coordinator ] (]) 19:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] ] (]) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Happy holidays == | ||
| :] (]) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)]] | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. '''<span style="color:red;">Erpert</span>''' <small><sup><span style="color:green;">]</span></sup></small> 03:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{clear}} | |||
| ==Good luck== | |||
| == TWL Questia check-in == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px; {{round corners}}" class="plainlinks"> | |||
| ] | |||
| <center>{{resize|200%|'''豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s'''}} | |||
| Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.<br> | |||
| この]]はHullaballoo Wolfowitzたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！<br> | |||
| {{resize|200%|'''フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!'''}}<br> | |||
| ]] 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC) | |||
| </center> | |||
| </div> | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Hello! | |||
| Thank you for your comment . It inspired me to make . 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. ] (]) 14:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this message because ] has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to ]. This is a brief update to remind you about that access: | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to ]. | |||
| *'''When your account expires you can reapply for access at ].''' | |||
| *Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. | |||
| *Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, ] and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources. | |||
| == Nonfree image in BLP info box == | |||
| Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out . The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Misplaced Pages Library can offer. | |||
| 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. ] (]) 08:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks!<br /> | |||
| <small>Delivered by ] (]) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Questia/Check_in/List&oldid=655573416 --> | |||
| == CGP Grey stick figure.png == | |||
| ==Mentioned you at AN/EW== | |||
| Hi. You removed the image ] from ] 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 ] 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 ]. –] (]) 17:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| At ]. It looks like he may be changing his behavior, but the reverting needs to stop. --] (]) 20:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}}{{ping|IagoQnsi}} You shouldn't really remove speedy deletion templates from file's you've uploaded. You can contest the template by adding {{tl|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 ]. You can also start a discussion at FFD yourself if you want. The consensus established on the file's talk page is a ] that cannot override policy like ] or a community consensus established at FFD; so, FFD is probably going to ultimately be were things need to be resolved. -- ] (]) 01:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :I think it a very bad idea to edit-war when your name has been brought up in an open ANEW discussion. --] (]) 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I don't think an admin is going to delete this per ] 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. -- ] (]) 02:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sent you an email. -- ] (]) 07:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::@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. ] 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. ] (]) 15:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you which is why I posted ] 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 ]. -- ] (]) 01:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == |
==Astral Dreadnought== | ||
| Just wanted to let you know that the ] article you have recently restored has been taken into a ], in case you want to give your opinion. ] (]) 09:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for merging of ] == | |||
| For some reason you keep deleting my personal life at https://en.wikipedia.org/Stuart_Smith_(musician) Please explain the problem here. These are all common knowledge and verifiable facts. | |||
| ]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] (]) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Nomination for merging of ] == | |||
| <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] (]) 17:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Your signature 2== | |||
| :What part of "wholly unsourced" is in any way unclear? Read ]. ] (]) 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I believe your signature is breaking the ] rule of Misplaced Pages. I think your signature is political in nature. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == TWL Questia check-in == | |||
| :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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 18:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::(<small>Shhh... best not mention it then... and they won't notice...</small>) 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. ] (]) 18:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>PS: I hope you don't mind that I modified the subheading, as there's an identical one above and it confuses the software. ] (]) 18:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ::::I mean it's in a signature so it's plastered everywhere. Isn't that like ] 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? ] specifically says | |||
| ::::"Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is not for: | |||
| Hello! | |||
| ::::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." | |||
| You are receiving this message because ] has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to ]. This is a brief update to remind you about that access: | |||
| ::::This can be extended to signatures too, I think. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to ]. | |||
| :::::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. ] (]) 18:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''When your account expires you can reapply for access at ].''' | |||
| ::::::{{ec}} ] mentions "user pages" too and also "talk page discussions." Therefore, I think the Hong Kong portion of the signature contravenes ] --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Remember, if you find this source useful for your Misplaced Pages work, make sure to include citations with links on Misplaced Pages: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. | |||
| ::::::Edit: I see you removed the portion that mentions SOAPBOX doesn't include talk pages. It does. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Misplaced Pages community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, ] and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources. | |||
| :::::::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. ] (]) 18:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::That's the reason for the edit conflict. Hence my statement above may not make much sense since it is replying to your PS. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 18:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::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. ] (]) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| {{outdent|:::::::::}} As ] mentions, this is a slippery slope. Though I object to the first part mentioning about administrators, there is no clear cut case in ]. 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. " --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 19:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out . The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Misplaced Pages Library can offer. | |||
| Wait... isn't that what already happened? ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 18:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks! | |||
| :Well SOAPBOX doesn't mention "signature" specifically. And I think that's the loophole Hullaballoo is trying to use. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 18:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| <small> Delivered by ] (]), on behalf of {{noping|National Names 2000}} 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC) </small> | |||
| ::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, {{tqq| 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. ] <sup style="white-space:nowrap;">] – ]'']</sup> 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Questia/Check_in/List&oldid=655573416 --> | |||
| :::{{ec}}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 {{tqq|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. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 18:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are ]. You fully know the spirit of ] is no "advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, '''political''', scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." While ] does not specifically mention signatures, it does mention talk pages and user pages. --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 19:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 19:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Suit yourself. Let's take this to ANI. ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See ] <!--Template:ANI-notice--> --] (]) — If (reply) then (]) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mention of non-notable awards in pornography articles== | |||
| :Go find something more productive to do. I'm sure there is a category somewhere that needs sorting that could benefit from your attention. ] (]) 22:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: | |||
| :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 Misplaced Pages than they do and therefore aren't willing to cause this strife and therefore are not doing this. ] (]) 03:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ]. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles. | |||
| == May 2020 == | |||
| Since you've been working on this for such a long time, your perspective will be especially helpful with defining our inclusion criteria. --] (]) 16:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please ] other editors, as you did on ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 08:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] (]) 14:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*], 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. ] and ]. 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 ], 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 ] and the paid porn industry promoter ]. Your "warning" is contrary to policy and practice, and you should expeditiously, expressly, withdraw it. ] (]) 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 ], which instructs users to "comment on ''content'', not on the ''contributor''. Personal attacks harm the Misplaced Pages 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, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::*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 ] 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. ] (]) 11:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Andrea Elson headshot == | ||
| Concerning the ] article, non-free headshot was added because no free alternative is currently available. When one is found, I would be happy to add it.] (]) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, | |||
| {{tpw}}{{ping|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 ] because it doesn't meet ]; 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. -- ] (]) 23:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Exactly. ] 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. ] (]) 01:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Misplaced Pages Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. All the best, ] (]) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Since you haven't claimed your account, I'm removing your name from the list of Misplaced Pages Library Newspapers.com account holders. You are welcome to reapply if you want access in the future. All the best, ] (]) 14:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi HW. I understand why you removed this file, but it was discussed at ] and kept as a result. Then, there was also ] 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. -- ] (]) 04:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Difference between webcam modeling and pornographic films == | |||
| ==Apology== | |||
| Why did you remove mentions of pre-porn webcam modeling from and ? Webcam modeling and performing in pornographic films are not the same thing like you insinuated in these edit summaries. There are significant differences between the two. Webcam modeling shows are live and involve an actual interaction between the performer and the viewer, unlike a pornographic film. Also, webcam modeling shows do not have entries on IAFD or IMDB like actual pornographic films do. Audience size is another big difference. A webcam modeling show is viewed by a very small group of people and in some cases, only one person. A pornographic film has a much wider audience. They are simply not the same job. A porn star's career starts when they shoot their first pornographic film, not when they first appeared on a webcam, stripped, modeled nude, etc. "" is an accurate and factual statement. Webcam modeling did not mark the beginning of her porn career, she did webcam modeling BEFORE porn. Please don't remove mentions of pre-porn webcam modeling from articles again. If your personal opinion is that there is no difference between the two, that's fine, just don't let it influence how you edit articles. You know, many people out there believe that there is no difference between a porn star and a prostitute, but WP doesn't let them go around replacing "pornographic actress" with "prostitute" in porn biographies. ] (]) 02:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi {{ping|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. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Shut up and go away, paid editor. What you post has virtually no relationship to the edits you are absurdly objecting to. ] (]) 02:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Killjoy == | ||
| No content | |||
| There has been a conflict over the use of the infobox image in the Jamie Dornan page, I'm hoping that a vote to choose a preferred image would settle the dispute. I am therefore writing to those who have edited Jamie Dornan page to voice their opinion in the ] so we can reach a consensus. I would welcome your opinion. ] (]) 11:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == "no current source" == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Can you wikilink me to the Misplaced Pages 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, '''<font face="times">]</font><font face="times">]</font>''' 01:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. I'm not sure I understand your objection to my close. I restored the article (with the full history) to draft space. Anybody can now work on it there and (almost) anybody can move it back to main article space. That seems like it's very close to what you're asking for, and bypasses a week's worth of debate. Is this a bad thing? -- ] ] 02:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI Discussion == | |||
| :The article wasn't eligible for A7 to begin with -- TV shows aren't eligible for A7. The article should have been restored on the initial request. ] (]) 04:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I still don't understand why you're making such a fuss about this. You could have just fixed up the draft and restored it to main article space yourself. But, whatever, I've backed out my DRV close. -- ] ] 15:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== ANI == | ||
| Someone reported you. See ]. Not me. ] (]) 23:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I noticed you removed some information from a string of articles today with the edit summary "inaccurately ascribed to CNBC, opinion of NN blogger/stringer not employed by CNBC". As far as I can tell Chris Morris is employed by CNBC , albeit in a freelance capacity. Am I missing something? ] (]) 18:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Asger Aaboe.jpg== | |||
| :Yes. Mprris is not an employee of CNBC, but an independent writer. He is not listed on the relevant CNBC staff pages, and identifies himself as freelance/independent on his own home page. See the discussion at ], which sums it up and, so far as I know, has stood undisputed. His relationship with CNBC could be analogized to that of a syndicated columnist, whose opinions would not be attributed to a newspaper than published them. ] (]) 18:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| ::Okay, thanks for that pointer. I'll go read that AfD now. Cheers! ] (]) 19:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 02:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Move protection == | |||
| : 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 ({{no ping|Anaaboe}}) might be one of Aaboe's daughters. photo shownto the one you uploaded. It's possible (though it seems a stretch) that could be a case of ] if it was a ], 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.{{pb}}FWIW, since the account has only made one edit so far, I didn't feel it was necessary to start advising them of ]; if, however, they're going to start regularly editing the article, then I think adding {{tl|Welcome-coi}} or {{tl|uw-coi}} to their user talk will be warranted. -- ] (]) 09:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ""A. R. Long"" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 19:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == A reminder == | |||
| The protection is there to halt a move war, not to promote the protected edition. Except where there is an obvious violation of policy, there is no obligation for the protecting admin to revert a page to its state before an edit war. The protection will automatically expire on 7 June, after which editors (or a closing admin upon request) are free to enact the outcome of the discussion. ]] 19:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]. Best, ] (]) 23:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
| :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. ] (]) 00:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. | |||
| :The above notice isn't mine but I'm letting you know you are at 3 reverts on ] too. I am disturbed by the original research you are carrying out with regards to degrees at University of Florida simply because the exact title of the major isn't used or given. If the OFFICIAL school paper informally refers to her degree concentration, this should not be a reason to disqualify as unreliable. This a ridiculous tact for you to take. Further if she says she named herself after a specific professor with that specific last name, she most probably did and just because you feel it's scandalous to his reputation is not a reason to outright remove the mention. You could have just removed his name! ] (]) 06:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| ==]== | |||
| ] has been prodded. The article has no footnotes but it contains significant content about this fictional castle in ]'s award-winning book '']'', so I was going to suggest merging this into the book article, but then I saw that last year you had reverted such a redirect. So before I went further I wanted to ask you the reasons for your objection and to see if you had another suggestion. Thanks. --] (]) 23:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Because of your comment at ], 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 ], if I may add) merely by ''participating'' in an olympics is really disturbing. Guess I should participate more in AfD of sportsmen than academics. <i><b>]</b></i> <sup><small>] ▾ ]</small></sup> 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == Native American mascot controversy == | |||
| == Deletion template at ] == | |||
| Your critique of ] would be appreciated. It appears very bloated and not per Misplaced Pages guidelines to me, but the individual who claims to have contributed 80% of the content (and probably did) thinks otherwise and is resisting some needed trimming. A thoughtful analysis by an experienced and neutral editor or two may convince the contributor to trim the article or accept revisions by others.] (]) 01:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Greetings! First, while the situation at ] did warrant an extended note, it was not criterion G6. I briefly used the generic {{tl|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. | |||
| == Speedy deletions == | |||
| 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. —''']''' (]) 20:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I agree I was overzealous on the speedy deletion notices. However, you also removed a large number of other flags-- both added by me and predating my edit-- which were very much necessary (notability, refimprove, etc.) I'll need to put those back in. If you'd like to assist, I am specifically targeting articles that have been flagged as orphans since 2009 or earlier. ] (]) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 16:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *HW, I suppose removing the speedy was valid, but the other tags were valid too. {{U|Interlaker}}, see ]. Thanks to both, ] (]) 17:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| **No, you're quite wrong about the tags. One claimed the article "relies too much on references to primary sources", which is dead wrong -- the tag was applied in 2007 and should have been removed in 2009 when the primary sourcing was removed. The other claimed the text was "written like a résumé", even though it was straightforward prose describing the article subject's major reporting jobs. Once again, the tag was initially applied years ago, the problem was resolved by subsequent editing, and the tag was obsolete. I'm certainly puzzled by this comment, and why you grudgingly "suppose removing the speedy was valid"; the rationale for the speedy was "because it has relied on primary sources sine 2007 and has been flagged as written like a resume since 2009", which bears no relationship to any valid criterion for speedy deletion, and would be inadequate grounds for standard deletion, not to mention the fact that the tags were plainly inaccurate. Interlaker spent a good deal of time yesterday placing uniformly invalid, out-of-process speedy tags on dozens of articles; I put a good deal of effort into cleaning up the mess Interlaker created, and you respond by hassling me over a quite minor point that on simple checking is seen to be demonstrably wrong. I know it's a hobby among one faction of the administrative corps to hassled The Big Bad Wolfowitz, but in matters like this it just damages the encyclopedia. ] (]) 17:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ***Wow. That's a complete misreading of the tone and content of my comment, but I wouldn't want to stand in the way of a good conspiracy. Have a great day. ] (]) 20:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ****Well, if you had a rational explanation for complaining about my removal of obsolete and clearly invalid tags, it would be nice if you provided it. ] (]) 20:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *****As far as the article on ] goes, I disagree about your removal of the resume tag. However, I won't fight you on that. In order to clear up any confusion for anyone else, however, I took the step of removing any unsourced material from the article. Several lines of material had been flagged as lacking citations since 2008, and I was well within my rights to remove them. Again, I agree that I was overzealous with the speedy deletion notices. At the same time, I believe it pays off to err on the side of caution-- all it takes is one Jar'Edo Wens article to undermine Misplaced Pages far more than a few misplaced speedy deletion notices ever could. I've been editing since 2006 and it pains me to see "citation needed" flags that go back almost to when I started, without the unsourced information having been removed in the intervening time. At any rate, as I mentioned before I've been targeting older articles flagged as orphans. If you'd like to join me in removing unsourced material, and adding (or as the case may be sometimes, removing) flags, then I'll welcome your participation. ] (]) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] delection request == | |||
| == My talk page == | |||
| Please help some one has put delection request for article ]. So help me to because before also it was previously also it was nominated. But you canel this request. | |||
| Why isn't it allowed? How is it a violation? ] (]) 02:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you | |||
| *Because our policy on nonfree content provides that nonfree content cannot be used outside articlespace. See ]#9. | |||
| == Photo deletion at ] == | |||
| == July 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you recently removed some content from ] without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages with an accurate ]. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. ''Section blanking is not very helpful, even if it is "gossipmongering". Thanks.''<!-- Template:uw-delete1 --> <span style="border=3px double #0075EA">]]</span></span> 13:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ] page and should be restored. | |||
| == Recent edit to user draft: Thank you. == | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| Thank you for your recent editing comment regarding your change to the draft template I've been working on. I'm still learning all the complexities and peculiarities of Misplaced Pages editing so your message about ] and usage outside the article namespace was helpful. I had to spend some time sorting it out though because your edit was a deletion of ] which (according to what I found on the file page) isn't actually listed as NFCC. Assuming ] though, I did find some other changes to be made based on your comments so I'll be reverting and editing appropriate to your guidance. As far as I can tell, the proper ] (I'm still learning this too) is to provide appropriate notice here. Hope I'm doing this right. ] 21:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] <span style="color:#ff8564">'''..''''']'''''··'''</span> 06:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}} Hi {{u|Oldbeeg}}. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the image because ] of still living persons are pretty much never allowed per ] of ]. 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 ] to ] for the file to be uploaded under a ]. You can find out a little more about this at ], but basically Misplaced Pages 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 ]. So, even though there are ] that can be used for "non-commercial use only" or "non-derivative use" only types of content, such licenses are not free enough for Misplaced Pages's purposes. If you want an idea as to how to ask the copyright holder for this permission, please see ] and ] for more information. -- ] (]) 06:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::What ] 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. ] (]) 19:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message == | |||
| == Kathy Hilton == | |||
| <table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;"> | |||
| Hi there, just wondered why you deleted the credits I added on Kathy's she did appear in those credits... And also the year she retired from acting was 1979 not 74 ] (]) 22:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. ] (]) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) | |||
| FYI this article has already been deleted twice, which is why I tagged it so quickly. Still, if you want to give them another chance, that's fine. ] (]) 01:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| </td></tr> | |||
| </table> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=990308077 --> | |||
| == ANI Notice == | |||
| == The Misplaced Pages Library needs you! == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> | |||
| ] | |||
| See ]. <span style="font-family:Courier;"><b> // ] :: ] </b></span> 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| We hope ] has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and ''we need your help!'' | |||
| == Colin Keiver Misplaced Pages Page == | |||
| With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: | |||
| *'''Account coordinators''': help distribute free research access | |||
| *'''Partner coordinators''': seek new donations from partners | |||
| *'''Communications coordinators''': share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices | |||
| *'''Technical coordinators''': advise on building tools to support the library's work | |||
| *'''Outreach coordinators''': connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs | |||
| *'''Research coordinators''': run reference services | |||
| <br> | |||
| <big><center>]</center></big> | |||
| <br/>Send on behalf of ] using ] (]) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:EuroCarGT@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Nikkimaria/BBlist&oldid=670298116 --> | |||
| ==July 2015== | |||
| IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO! | |||
| I had mentioned in the descriptions of those uploads in the article ] 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. ] (]) 13:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware that ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''...] (]) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 Misplaced Pages page without reason. I’ll mention it again, both of those images had been approved for usage. ] (]) 14:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <s>This is as clear case of routine enforcement of ]#1 as one could ask for,</s> and your edit summary accusation of "VANDALISM" is hard to see as indicating that you are disputing this in good faith. Your interpretation of ]#1 is '''Absolutely wrong'''...] (]) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-ew --> | |||
| :Before you embarrass yourself any further, you badly need to learn ]. 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, Misplaced Pages-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. | |||
| == Hi == | |||
| :You should also be aware that flinging around wholly unfounded accusations of vandalism is considered disruptive behaviour. ] (]) 19:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sorry I didn't know ] (]) 03:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *To clarify the above. Point 1 of ] 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. ] (]) 20:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tpw}} Hi {{u|Johny3936}}. Just going to pipe in and say that both Hullaballoo Wolfwitz and Only in death are correct about how ] deals with non-free images of living persons. There are some exceptions to this listed in item 1 of ], 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 ] for the images to be uploaded to Misplaced Pages or Wikimedia Commons under an ] as explained in ] and ]. 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 ], 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 ], ] or even ] 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. -- ] (]) 03:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I am beginning to get tired of these confrontational Misplaced Pages moderators like Hullaballoo who make edits without even explaining what they did. If we’re playing by the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’s policies before I “embarrass” myself “even further”. Isn’t that mature there. Well, the thing is that you work on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Michael Richards== | |||
| Hello. I'd like to discuss to you about the Michael Richards "Personal life" section. It appears that you have deleted the information concerning his relationship with Ann Talman because you claim it is gossip. I have created a section in regards to Ann Talman on ] and I'd like to invite you to join the discussion.] (]) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 08:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Fair use == | |||
| == Carlos Petroni == | |||
| I did not know that the cover image of the book in the portal. Can you guide me to the policy related to it? ] (]) 13:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :]#9, which generally prohibits the use of nonfree images outside articlespace. ] (]) 13:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I see you deleted the newspaper cover I added to ]. 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. ] (]) 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == NFCC == | |||
| :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 ], 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. ] (]) 17:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| I suggest you contact the uploader of the images that you find the material not "fair use" as each image is directly and specifically connected to the MITSFS. In fact, the first such image for Astounding was made by the MITSFS with the direct permission and encouragement of the magazine's publisher <g>. I tend to oppose indiscriminate "fair use" but suggest you graciously reconsider your opinion here, indeed. I was fortunate enough to have met Mr. Gernsback, who gave over $1,000 to the organization (IIRC he gave a ] to the club - and later one of the Gestetners, as an MIT student, was a member as well). And I would love to have the alternating left and right placement restored - it makes the page look better even on iPhones. Cheers. ] (]) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ==Rockteem Bhattacharjee (Actor)== | |||
| A kitten for all the great work you do {{u|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}}! | |||
| Please take a look at the Talk page of the article - there was a recent AfD and this repost has exactly the same issues.] (]) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please read ] more carefully. It states that G4 does not apply to a page "which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion". The action you cite was a prior speedy deletion, which supersedes the pending AFD. If the reason for the prior speedy deletion still applies, that tag should be applied -- not G4. ] (]) 12:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah so just for my clarification. The article was speedy deleted and the closed AfD reflected that rather than AfD consensus.] (]) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's right on target. ] (]) 13:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, this is a comment about . | |||
| I added those two sources (the gossip magazine ''People en Español'' and '']'') because I was trying to establish notability for her (outside of her being a random beauty pageant contest in the United States and an actress on Spanish-language television shows and commercials). The user who started her Misplaced Pages article , and I had never heard of Emeraude Toubia before coming across her Wiki article, so I just googled and added all of the news articles that mentioned her name, including those two sources. Not for gossip purposes. Just fyi. ] (]) 03:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| FYI: Re your decline of the G4 speedy: The nominator indeed failed to link to a previous AfD, but on the article talk page I had linked to ], a more recent AfD (from 2014) than the one you had apparently found (]) from 2009. I don't know if this affects your assessment, but I wanted to be sure you had seen all of the relevant info. Thank you for your time. --] ] 15:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's still not G4-eligible, because it includes a referenced claim of an award in 2015, which means it's not substantially identical to the deleted version for two reasons. I know it's hard to drive the stake through the heart of lousy articles like this, but it's often the case that standard deletion processes are required. ] (]) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough, no worries there. But on further review, the article is a direct copypaste from his bio on his Reverbnation site, so I've tagged it as a copyvio. Yes, this type of thing is frustrating, but irrespective of the persistent efforts of the article creator(s), the guy isn't ''miles'' away from the notability standard, so I suppose we just have to be open to reassessment within reason. --] ] 17:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| In my recent edit, you said "Misplaced Pages is not a celebrity hookup history". Of course it is because I wrote it in her personal life part. I haven't add it back again because I think we need to talk about it first. (] (]) 01:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have just commented/recommended keep on the above afd. I appreciate the sentiments you gave in the discussion but hope my suggestion of a ] is okay. | |||
| ] (]) 14:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <br style="clear: both;"/> | <br style="clear: both;"/> | ||
| :I think you need more than a cup of tea. Maybe you should take a break; I'm worried about your stress level. Either way, I want to remind you that Misplaced Pages:Civility|civility]] is a part of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct. Maybe you're better at I am at finding references; maybe you're more patient with un-referenced material. But there's absolutely no reason to go ad homenim. Behavior like yours makes people shy about contributing to the encyclopedia, and that hurts everyone. -- ] (]) 01:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think not. Pointing out that you didn't bother to check Google Scholar in looking for sources on the work one of the most distinguished female authors of the twentieth century isn't an "ad homenim" (''sic'') attack; it's pointing out your failure to comply with ] and related aspects of deletion practice. And not for the first time. See, for example, ], ], ], ], ]. Nominating articles for deletion without making competent attempts to assess the subjects' notability is disruptive, and you should expect to be called out for doing it repeatedly. ] (]) 02:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == NFCC violations? == | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for August 5== | |||
| Hello, I would appreciate it if you could explain why you deleted all of the images from ]'s page. Each image has a non-free use rationale. Thank you, ] (]) 23:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :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". ] (]) 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)," 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages policies. Thank you, ] (]) 00:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :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 ] -- although if you can show that the poster was originally published without a copyright notice, it could be used as a free image. ] (]) 00:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: Based on a visual inspection, 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 , per ], 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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ] (]) 21:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::: 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) , at 62-65.) ] (]) 21:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| As a follow up, I am also wondering why ] 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 ] 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, ] (]) 22:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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, ] (]) 16:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Viper (rapper) image. == | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I noticed you took the profile image of ] off his page. | |||
| == Why did you reverted my changes? == | |||
| 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. | |||
| Hey! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Hope you are doing well, I request you kindly don't revert my edits into this , because it adds more beauty and relevance after adding a relevant image of the user box. I hope you better understand and will avoid such illogical reverts. Thanks.--] (]) 03:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| If it's not that and there's something wrong with the submitting process that I have done please tell me. Thank you - ] (]) 13:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :No. ] and ], which incorporate policy, strictly prohibit the display of nonfree images in templates, whatever the aesthetic value may be. Whenever you display a nonfree image outside articlespace, the use is automatically flagged for review and presumptive removal. As you've likely noticed by now, another user has already removed the noncompliant use. ] (]) 14:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages-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. ] (]) 23:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Had a chat with ] about this (on my talk page). Currently making Viper himself fill out a ] 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 ] fails, then feel free to revert the edit. ] (]) 00:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, but that's clearly contrary to our free content policies. The image must be removed unless/until sufficient per,ission is received. ] (]) 00:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Lee Wagstaff == | |||
| == speedy decline of ] == | |||
| Hi. I'd like to get some clarity on why you reverted the tag I placed on the page ]. 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. ] (]) 05:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Could you explain why it does not fit into the ]. See : ] and ]. Thanks! ] (]) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Well, for clarity you should begin by reading ], 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. ] (]) 16:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::haha...fine..I understood that it does not apply in this case {{Thank You}}...I read ] and ]...but where is it explicitly mention that it does not apply for real people (king of Mars) ? ] (]) 22:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Jumping in - that's because that's what ] is for. ] (]) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Garchy}} ... {{Thank you}}...got it! ] (]) 20:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Road of Memory G12 == | ||
| 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. ] <sup><small>(]) (])</small></sup> 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
| I hadn't seen the previous CSD, sorry for adding a second. I can see significance, but I don't think it will pass notability muster so I've added an XFD, in case you want to add your thoughts: ] Thanks! ] (]) 21:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (P.S., I "thanked" you for your last edit on this talk page because I thought you had a perfect/funny reply about WP A11.) | |||
| == February 2021 == | |||
| == Your edit on Lucio Battisti (album) == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''6 months''' for violating ] per ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 04:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| Hi, I'm writing to you because of at ]. Thanks for the contribution but I think you should have discussed before making an edit that -if unnoticed- could have permanently destroyed somebody's else work. With that said, the article had a small part of "relevant commentary": it was exactly the part you removed - the audio files' captions, that contained the only bit of music-related information in the article. It is certainly little, but the entire article is a stub, and to me it's no surprise that a 2-line article (track listing apart) has a short commentary. The article will grow and so will the audio files commentary. Cheers, --'''] · '''<small>]</small> 10:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Three}} --] (]) 07:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :No. The use rationale for each file stated "It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken. The section of music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song's lyrics, musical and vocal style". Three of the five captions included no substantive commentary whatever, and therefore were not used consistently with their rationales. The other two captions included superficial, unsourced commentary which itself called for removal as original research; and the content was so insubstantial that they could not support use under NFCC#8. ] (]) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{clear}} | |||
| == Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa == | |||
| == Use of non-free images on User Pages. == | |||
| ], you have removed the relationship status for both individuals on their pages. | |||
| {{ping|User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} How does one determine that an image is "non-free", and should not be used on User Pages? Thanks. --- ] (]) 18:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The simplest answer is that is the image file is hosted on Misplaced Pages Commons, it should be OK; if it's hosted elsewhere, it's probably not. When you look at the image's File page (which you reach by clicking on the image), the page will either say (in a line underneath the image) "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons" or "Non-free media information and use rationale". The former indicates the file is free (public domain or appropriately licensed for use); the latter indicates it isn't. A relatively small percentage of the off-Commons files are also free, and don't carry the "nonfree media information" line, but those need to be checked carefully. For book covers, the general rule is that pre-1923 covers are safe to use; later covers may not be. ] (]) 19:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} Thank you so much, as I've long been confused on this score. That is really helpful information, and it was generous of you to take the time to so thoroughly explain it. Thanks again. --- ] (]) 09:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| For ], on January 18 you stated ''→Personal life: no current source'' | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| For ], on January 18 you stated ''→Personal life: noncurrent gossip, no significance indicated'' | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | In appreciation for your generous assistance with regard to the use of public domain, versus non-free, photo-images in Misplaced Pages. Much appreciated. ] (]) 09:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| 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? | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|Ayub407|ts=13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 13:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| On Google news, the first page brings three recent articles that clearly state they are still in a relationship: | |||
| == Buck Adams == | |||
| https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/exclusive-interview-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-candid-confessions-on-rubina-bajwas-birthday/photostory/81185284.cms | |||
| What's the blp violation ? It's not the name. He's dead, so the BLP issue can't be about him. I cannot find anything in the ref that's derogatory about anyone. I know and respect your work so I won't revert but I'm genuinely baffled. What am I missing? ] (]) 16:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a BLP violation with regard to the boxer, who appears to be a different, presumably living person with a similar, common name. The boxer is described as a resident of Corpus Christi, TX, the porn performer as a resident of CA. The porn star's bios generally state he was a boxer before entering porn in 1984, but that date is more or less the midpoint in the boxer's career. The boxer had bouts all over the US and even one in Italy, which I'd expect would have resulted in some hype about being nationally/internationally known, but I haven't even spotted one source not based on the Misplaced Pages article that even describes him as a "professional" boxer. There's at least one other boxer named Charles Allen who's a boxer in the same time frame, whose last fight is in 1983, which is a better fit, but he's described as based in Chicago. I just don't see enough evidence to connect that boxer with the porn performer, despite the similar names. ] (]) 16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 17:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/happy-birthday-rubina-bajwa-beau-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-the-cutest-video/articleshow/81186925.cms | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for August 12== | |||
| https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/7days7lovestories-rubina-bajwa-and-gurbaksh-chahal-prove-opposites-attract/articleshow/80752363.cms | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| If you go to their verified instagram accounts, they are very much still a couple: | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.instagram.com/gchahal/ | |||
| == To clarify... == | |||
| https://www.instagram.com/rubina.bajwa/ | |||
| ...I mean you should start a section saying why it is original research. I see sources, although I cannot immediately verify many of them. There are issues with the added text, but I don't think reverting them with one edit summary and without even notifying the user responsible for adding the text is not helpful. While it is important that editors be aware of the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, I think editor retention is also important. The editor is not being neutral? Point out what is wrong, and don't be vague and go without saying the ''why''. If you had completely reverted the edit but taken a moment to explain on the article's talk page or Bouldergeist's talk page, I might have been alright. I just don't think you went about it in the best way. If you disagree with me in some way, I respect that, but again, I think you should be more specific in pointing out the problem. Thanks. ] ] 18:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| By the way, I added tags to the article based on what you said in your edit summary. I don't get where the original research you speak of is, no I neglected to add an OR tag. ] ] 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == SubtropicalMan at ANI == | |||
| == Archival == | |||
| I have archived your talk page and removed all pre-2016 comments. Feel free to revert me. --] ] <sup>''<font face="Times New Roman">]</font>''</sup> 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :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. — ] (]) 12:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Marchjuly}} That's fine. I'll wait until August 22. ] ] <sup>''<font face="Times New Roman">]</font>''</sup> 12:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. -- ] (]) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, but 800KB is impossible for almost all devices to handle. I have seen larger talk pages than this (] is 880KB), but this is the largest regularly viewed talk page (with the occasional exception of ]). Perhaps I could start a thread at ] about forcible archiving of talk pages. ] ] <sup>''<font face="Times New Roman">]</font>''</sup> 10:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Jar Jar Binks Must Die.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I asked in thread about more history, diffs, etc. to document more actionable interference. I wanted to ask you here more directly, do you intend to provide more solid background information in the proposal for the topic ban? If you need a few days that's fine, but I am concerned that it's a fairly severe sanction and I'm just not seeing actionable disruption in the thread or what I saw spending a while looking at the behavior in logs and histories. Thanks. ] (]) 18:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Ignore this. Fixed. ] (]) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Reference errors on 13 August == | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have '''automatically detected''' that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. {{#ifeq:1|1|It is|They are}} as follows: | |||
| *On the ] page, caused a ] <small>(])</small>. ( | ) | |||
| Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a ], you can . | |||
| Thanks, <!-- User:ReferenceBot/inform -->] (]) 00:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi HW. Welcome back. Now that your back, I'm wondering if you'd mind taking a look at ]. Do you think this could possibly be {{tl|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? -- ] (]) 05:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Dead Sea 1618 == | |||
| == A kitten for you! == | |||
| Hi, I would disagree that ] makes any credible claim of importance. Why did you remove the tag? ] (]) 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Because putting an A7 tag on a new article approximately one minute after an inexperienced editor has written just a single sentence is abysmally rude, stupis, and a violation of ]. The comments you wrote on your talk page on this point also indicate you don't properly understand the difference between "notability" and "significance", which is a lower standard. If a subject is "potentially notable", depending on the sourcing, there's a claim of significance sufficient to survive A7. ] (]) 19:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == "blithering idiot and/or probable sock at work" == | |||
| Wolfie is back, Hooray!{{=)}} | |||
| ] (]) 15:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| <br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
| == No current summary == | |||
| :Hi Hullaballoo. You have been here 9 years. You know not to call other editors "blithering idiot". It does not matter if they are an established editor or even a drive by troll. We don't allow personal attacks here. I don't think any action is required in response to this other than a friendly note to please not let it become a pattern. While I rejected the CSD request I can see where the user was coming from, what little assertion of notability there is is weak at best. ] 20:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| That is not a reason to remove well-sourced content. And, your previous summary was that was . There are now two good sources, and there is no reason to remove it. ]. ] (]) 23:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Please stop trolling my contributions == | |||
| :Spare me your hypocrisy, @]. 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 has no business complaing that someone else has removed "well-sourced" content. ] (]) 20:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :: You know perfectly well that sourced content is all that is required and not a current source. Comparing ] to ] is not even reasonable. ] (]) 20:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 21:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::: If you say so, but I'm willing to take both issues to a larger community. ] (]) 21:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Feel free to embarrass yourself publicly. ] (]) 21:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Lee Sun-bin == | |||
| I've still received no reply from you about calling me a "blithering idiot", so can you now stop taking CSD templates off of pages that in no way have a place on Misplaced Pages? Thanks. ] (]) 21:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No. You do not appear to me to be a good faith editor. You have repeatedly placed inappropriate speedy tags on just-created articles from new users, without giving them any reasonable opportunity to finish writing the articles. '''Nominating articles for speedy deletion one minute after their creator's first edit is abusive, shows a lack of ], shows a lack of reasonable civility, and grossly violates ].''' Even though your account was registered barely 24 hours ago, you are plainly not a new editor; your user page makes claims about their past editing, so you are not making a clean start. You therefore appear to be a bad-hand account renewing misconduct about which you were warned or sanctioned, and I suspect your account should be blocked. I note you make attempt to substantively justify your misbehaviour. ] (]) 21:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| @] Not sure how you defined it as gossip when content is supported by sources are reliable source as per ]. In addition, I read ] 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. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy Removal == | |||
| :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. ] (]) 02:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] 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 ] 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. '''<span style="color:#f535aa">—</span> ] <span style="color:#f535aa">(] • ])</span>''' 09:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Your signature (2) == | |||
| Can, in the future, you give some reason when removing speedy deletion tags I've put up? ] had absolutely no indication of importance (and it was past the 10-15 minute recommended threshold), yet you removed it, calling it "disruptive" with no further explanation. Care to explain? ] (]) 22:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| 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 for exactly this kind of issue, but if you're not ready to fix this issue, it might have to be re-examined. {{ping|Wugapodes}} FYI (as closer of that discussion), and for your independent judgement on this editor's signature too... ] (] / ]) 03:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :It was eminently clear that the ] article was not a legitimate A7 candidate, and marking it that way shows, at best, a marked lack of ], and probably worse. The article (apparently accurately) identifies as a television presenter on a notable national broadcaster. The identification is appropriately sourced. Your claim that this is "absolutely no indication of importance" is bereft of sensibility and logic, and once again shows you have no business making deletion nominations. And I plainly did not call this particular nomination "disruptive", although in retrospect I certainly should have. ] (]) 22:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :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".] (]) 08:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough. Considering you appear to loathe every aspect of my existence on Misplaced Pages, you might want to reconsider saying that I have no business making deletion nominations, considering the only ones that have been failed were removed by you. ] (]) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (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 and .) ] (]) 08:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't believe that. I expect that your prior account contains ample examples of prior misbehaviour, And I'm already sick of your incessant innuendo. ] (]) 22:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *: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. ] (] / ]) 18:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If you're so concerned about that, why don't you check the account itself? ] ] (]) 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *{{re|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. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 20:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == September 2021 == | |||
| == nonfree image may not be displayed in template == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''6 months''' for making ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)</div></div> | |||
| <!-- Template:uw-aoablock --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed |1=First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.<br /> Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.<br/> Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old , which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction. ] (]) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC) |decline = After a community review of this block there is no consensus to reverse or alter it. <small>] <small><sup>Need help? ''']'''</sup></small></small> 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)}} | |||
| Why not? is there policy for that somewhere? ; if there is then revert also BMW and maybe other templates --<span style="font:bold 11px Kristen ITC;padding:0 3px 0 4px">>]</span> <sup>]·]</sup> 20:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment to reviewing admin'''. Not that my opinion matters much, but as a participant in the AFD I was a bit surprised that the comments made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at ] were taken as a serious personal attack infraction; as the nominator at this particular AFD (Boleyn) has been nominating large amounts of articles for deletion very rapidly recently in succession. These nominations have been so close together that a competent BEFORE search could not have been done in between nominations. I do believe the concerns raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz were justified under the circumstances. That said, Hullaballoo could have been kinder and calmer in the way those issues were presented. I am not familiar with the history behind this case, but I would argue that it's not clear that a blockable infraction was made in this instance. (at least not one deserving of such a long ban) ] (]) 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :] #9. The image in the BMW template is considered a free image as it is too simple to receive copyright protection. ] (]) 21:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I very seldom ever express views on unblock requests, however, despite having some vague understanding of the civility issues that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a party to over time, I do take some sympathy on this occasion. If you take any pre-existing bias out and consider if another editor had made the same or similar comments, I would not think an instant block would be the result, or indeed any kind of block. I appreciate when there is a history of incivility then there is considerably less assumption of good faith, however in this instance I don't think HW's comments were excessively incivil. Borderline, yes, brusque, very much so and the general tone was eyebrow-raising. Looking at the underlying view expressed, the statements made by HW are not too unreasonable. The worst personal statement I see is to "trout the nominator harshly" - if this is the worst of HW's statement, then maybe it's a sign of progress. ''']''' <sup>(] • ])</sup> 19:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Blocking admin comment:''' On 22 February 2021, {{u|Wugapodes}} blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for six months "per consensus at ANI, violation of civility-related editing restriction". This block and the ANI closure that led to it was uncontested, which establishes that a civility restriction was and is in fact in force, as described in the . <p>About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at ]: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Misplaced Pages yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" (), and of "sloth" (). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs. <p>In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Misplaced Pages's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::In context, the "institutional misogyny" highlighted seems more in reference to the nomination than a direct personal attack, although still inappropriate. I am not an advocate of HW in the slightest, particularly as there certainly remains issues with general civility and the apparent inability to make a statement without drawing some personal critique. Maybe HW should reflect on the general tone of the statement and consider how it could have been alternately expressed without the phrases of concern that Sandstein took issue with. ''']''' <sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|Sandstein}} I'd like to respectfully disagree with this block. I have two main concerns. First, I'm not convinced that the comments were particularly vexatious. I find ] helpful for weighing civility blocks, and I'm not sure the conduct at issue falls below the standard laid out there. Second, I'm worried about the timeliness of the block. The comment was made two weeks ago, and in that time the comment didn't seem to cause any stir. Unless there's some incident since then which I'm unaware of, I don't really see what is being prevented. Given the minimal disruption it caused, a block seems more like an escalation than a resolution. Given my close and previous block, I obviously agree with you about the interpretation of the ], but I would like to think that raising your concerns on this talk page before blocking would have led to a better outcome. I'd like to ask you to reconsider and hopefully come to the conclusion to unblock, but I'll leave it to another admin to evaluate if you still object as I'm not a fan of unilaterally overturning civility blocks. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">— ]]</span> 00:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Wugapodes}}, thanks for your feedback, but I see things differently. In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Misplaced Pages. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Misplaced Pages process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct. In this particular case, what the block prevents is similar misconduct by this user for six months. As their reaction here shows, they do not recognize the problem with their conduct. This indicates that "raising my concerns on this talk page", as you suggest, would not have changed the user's conduct. I remain of the view that the block is an appropriate preventative measure. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 06:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Somebody surely needs to be trouted here but I won’t suggest whom lest it be interpreted as a personal attack...—] (]) 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I feel obliged to comment here, primarily because my !vote at the AFD in question was "per related commentary above from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and I specifically endorsed ]. Those of us who spend a lot of time at AFD have been constantly frustrated by the "efforts" of one particular editor who is blindly nominating articles for deletion in rapid succession simply because they have been tagged as being of questionable notability for years. It's clear that the majority of these nominations have been done without any reference to ] and not once have I seen the nominator defend their nominations or offer some additional commentary as to why the nomination was made. Many of them have been speedily kept or ] closed. Its also clear that there is no appetite among the admin corps for dealing with this particular editor and these particular nominations. Okay, fine, but the result is increasingly frustrated AFD participants. We're here because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless of course your contribution is the target of a lazy, drive-by (against-policy) deletion nomination and there isn't someone like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz around to push back against that sort of nonsense. Sorry, but this is a bad block. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Jason Statham == | |||
| *The fact that the block was implemented 2 weeks after the comment was made, without prompting from the editor against whom the comment was made, in a discussion where other editors actually ''endorsed'' the comment in question (including, in part, an admin), makes it all the stranger. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm looking at this and thinking about my opinion on it in general, but if the block is based on conduct on AfD's could it not have been limited to the Misplaced Pages namespace? ] (]) 09:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|331dot}}, in my view not. Incivility is an issue of personal character and temperament that is not limited to any particular namespace. There's no reason to believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be more civil in, say, article talk page discussions than in AfDs, especially because in their unblock request above they do not even recognize that their conduct is problematic at all. What's more, the previous six-month block also extended to all namespaces; it would not be in keeping with our practice of escalating blocks to limit the scope of a block for recidivism. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *From what I've seen about this matter, I think I am in agreement with {{u|Bungle}} and {{u|Wugapodes}} above. Maybe it's a judgement call, but I don't think that the comments crossed the line. Like Wugapodes, I'm not going to unilaterally lift this block. There also seems to be concerns with whether a formal sanction exists at all. ] (]) 11:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *{{re|Sandstein}} from the above comments it is clear that this action lacks consensus. Anyone can of course try to gain consensus for such a block or other sanction at the appropriate forum but I suggest that the block should be removed until such time as that might occur.—] (]) 13:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *Entirely up to you, HW. But, would you consider ''shortening'' your signed name, per ] & maybe get an Archive Bot for your talkpage? ] (]) 15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| * ''"There's a strain of institutional misogyny underlying this nomination"'' is a personal attack warranting a long block? ] (]) 08:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == AN/I == | |||
| Hey, I'm not trying to get into an edit war or content dispute over the relationship of Jason Statham, but the content is sourced and the couple still appear to be together as of late July, 2015(at least). I am bringing this here on your Talk page because I don't even think this needs a Talk page discussion on the Article Talk page, but if you insist, I will discuss it there with you. I will provide more sources, but I think that's not really necessary unless there is a change in the status. Thanks. ] (]) 03:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I have started a thread at ] that involves you. It can be found . Hopefully someone will copy over anything you wish to post. If I see it, I will do so. ] (]) 14:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Revert == | |||
| :This is to note that the ANI discussion was by {{u|HighInBC}} as follows: "While controversial this block falls well within the discretion of an administrative action and is based on prior behavior and sanctions. In addition while there is significant opposition to the block there is a majority that supports the block. This discussion has been going on for more than 48 hours and as time passes is moving more towards supporting the block. There is not a consensus that the block was incorrect and it is not likely that one will form. As far as the community discussion goes the block stands. The remaining unblock avenues remain open." <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 09:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| Your changes (remove images from article) has been , according to the Misplaced Pages:CYCLE: discuss and consensus first. English Misplaced Pages allows the use nonfree images. Also, these images are relevant to the content of the article and can be helpful (WP:NFCC #8). Your change is controversial and even if you have any argument, it may be debatable and even as you have a different opinion - this is debatable and must to be discuss first. If any changes are controversial and debatable, I have the right to undo changes and new changes can be made after gaining a consensus. Please stop edit warring, discuss and consensus first - according to the ]. <span class="unicode" style="white-space:nowrap;">]<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;">]<br/><abbr style="border-bottom: none;" title="intermediate level of English" {{#if:|lang="{{{3}}}"}}><small>(en-2)</small></abbr></span></span> 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :No. ] (better known as ] is an essay. ] is policy, and it forbids the use of replaceable nonfree images. That you believe the images meet NFCC#8 is irrelevant; even if they do (and that's debatable), they fail other criteria and therefore can't be used. No discussion is required for their removsal. Restoring such images without consensus that all NFCC criteria are met is disruptive editing, and its repetition is likely to result in blocking. ] (]) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, you wrong. These images meets WP:NFCC, please see description of photos . As I wrote earlier, your change is controversial and debatable, must to be discuss before changes. Please stop disruptive editing, its repetition is likely to result in blocking. <span class="unicode" style="white-space:nowrap;">]<span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;">]<br/><abbr style="border-bottom: none;" title="intermediate level of English" {{#if:|lang="{{{3}}}"}}><small>(en-2)</small></abbr></span></span> 21:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, you're, as usual, completely wrong. Read the descriptions yourself. Nogt even the image uploaders claimed the images weren't replaceable. You've been warned enough. ] (]) 21:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you Sandstein for posting this here, and apologies to Hullaballoo for forgetting to inform you of the result myself. <small>] <small><sup>Need help? ''']'''</sup></small></small> 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:DEStevenson.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC) | |||
| :If you think that's annoying, wait until you're blocked for repeatedly inserting content with ''reliable'' sources into BLPs. ] (]) 14:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::So you think '']'' is not reliable? WTF even that newspaper reported about the size of Mandingo's penis. --] (]) 14:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Since that's a source I left in the BLP, any reasonable, competent editor would infer I deemed it sufficiently reliable. ] (]) 14:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Seriously you deserve to be blocked for revoming sourced concent from many pornographic articles. --] (]) 14:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::] requires the use of "'''high quality'''" reliable sources. If you won't accept that, you shouldn't be editing BLPs here. ] (]) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Greetings== | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for August 25== | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#8A3324; background-color:#F5F5DC; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
| <span style="font-family: Corbel;"><i>Gpkp</i></span><small style="color:#555"> ''] • ] • ]</span>]''</small> has given you ]! Vanilla ice cream promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| ''Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings! Hope u r seeing this message...<br>have a nice day! <br> Many thanks for your valuable suggestions on image files...'' | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing info == | |||
| why are you vandalising a page and removing sponsor references without proof person is no longer sponsored. Also removing key info that is hugely relevant in NZ | |||
| :Because ] applies to all biographies. No "proof" is required to remove long-unsourced statements. Reliable sourcing is required to support content. ] (]) 02:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Why don't you noninate this article for deletion. If pail the porn bio'c citera lol --] (]) 12:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|HitroMilanese|Speedy deletion nomination of Niccolò Turinetto|ts=21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ]] 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hello, I duly respect your view. But you can not decline speedy on behavioral guidelines, you should consider wikipedia policies first. By removing A7 tag you assert that this article indicates importance and credible claims of significance , which it doesn't . I am not going to take it to Afd or re-nominate it but you should think a little. Regards. ]] 21:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *]. Speedying an article less than one minute after a new user had written only a single sentence is abominable misbehavior. I suggest you review discussions like ] to see that your position is just plain wrong. ] (]) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Are you out of your mind? What has he written? It's not about a distant planet. You expect sources on that. You are an awesome optimistic. If somebody is acting jerk between me and you then it's not me. Read the article. He wrote most probably about himself and he found you ''The Saviour''. '''A reporter, photographer, video maker, YouTube, dj and blogger. born in 1998 who created luxury and beautiful things like supercars while studying economics.''' Lol :p. Let it hang for 7 days, you'll be happy. had references from Day 1 and even your edit summary says it claims importance, it certainly does. Why didn't you write same edit summary here when declining speedy? Happy Editing. Regards. ]] 22:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>included stories published between 1925 and 1930; Quinn provided an introductory essay.<ref></nowiki>{{red|''']'''}}<nowiki>http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?251238 ISFDB bibliography</nowiki>{{red|''']'''}}<nowiki></ref></nowiki> | |||
| *<nowiki>assembled and edited by ]. The collections included about one-third of the series</nowiki>{{red|''')'''}}<nowiki>, as well as the only full-length de Grandin novel, ''The Devil's Bride''. The volumes carried</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (-1, -2, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 01:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for September 1== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Friendly Cup == | |||
| Normally, if an article is in the process of creation, I would not tag it for deletion. But a quick search shows that there is ''no'' competition called the "]" at the level that would involve that selection of top-tier football clubs. The article is likely a ], but it is clearly an article that provides insufficient context to ascertain what the author is writing about. <font color="green">]</font><font color="green" size="5px"></font><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Katherine Kelly/ Rylan Clark == | |||
| They are married, you didn't need to change the names of their spouses. ] (]) 19:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Ryan Clark and ] are two different people. ] (]) 19:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *I was sure that when I typed in google 'Katherine Kelly husband' it came up with 'Rylan Clark' also, I am sure that I watched an interview with Clark and he stated that he was bisexual, not gay. I will try to find evidence to back this up. | |||
| == Speedy decline at ] == | |||
| This is the version as it existed after I reverted the POV cruft that was added this morning. Over 5000 bytes of unsourced fancruft was added today. Would you do me the favor of looking at it again, and reconsidering? Not a huge deal one way or another, but unsourced additions by a single fan do not an article make... ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *The article says the subject performed on the soundtrack of multiple notable films. That's enough to survive A7, despite the ghastly prose. ] (]) 17:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the response. If there are no objections, I will consider AfD - assuming that would be a reasonable course of action. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 17:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==] nomination of ]== | |||
| ] | |||
| {{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}} | |||
| A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, ''etc.''), web content or an organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about ]. | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. <!-- Template:Db-notability-notice --> ] (]) 18:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == September 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 2 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki></nowiki>{{red|'''[['''}}<nowiki>[[File:Wonder stories 193105.jpg|thumb|right|Williamson's " Through the Purple Cloud" was the cover</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 2, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 15:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Complain, complain, complain. I've reviewed your contributions and you never have anything nice to say about anyone. ] (]) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>Amazing stories 193107.jpg|thumb| ''Spacehounds of IPC'' was also serialized in ''Amazing Stories''</nowiki>{{red|''')'''}}<nowiki>]]</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (-1, 0, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 17:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Edit warring on Bristol Palin == | |||
| Please note that BLP allows you to remove unsourced information. Please do not delete well referenced information like you did and w/o discussion. This is not about trivia - the subject of the biography took a position on a politiical controversy. Thank you. ] (]) 15:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Go away, troll. Using Misplaced Pages in order to shame women whose views you disagree with is grossly unacceptable. The internet is replete with places where you can indulge your misogyny. ] (]) 15:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Re: Deletion of deletion tag == | |||
| Hi. You tried to message me , but I didn't receive the message because you added a space in my username, so sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The reason that the edits didn't appear in the contributions history, is because they were blocked by the edit filter and so were never actually committed. You can see the user filter log . Anyway, it looks like the article issue has being resolved, so that's a good outcome. Cheers ] (]) 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==File:Clement Davies c1955.jpg== | |||
| You have persistently deleted this image erronously from the article ]. | |||
| *You first deleted it saying "obviously fails NFCC#8". NFCC#8 is about contextual significance and the image clearly provides contextual significance to the article. I re-instated the image, saying this. | |||
| *You then deleted it again adding "not even a use rationale". You overlooked the fact that the image had a use rationale. I re-instated the image, saying this. | |||
| *Despite this, you again deleted the image, claiming the rationale was not valid, stating "nonfree image may not be used for identification outside the subject's biography". I re-instated the image, saying the use rationale was valid, saying nonfree image may be used for identification outside the subject's biography. | |||
| *You have now chosen to delete the image again, claiming an unspecified NFCC violation. Earlier you claimed that non-free images can not be used in articles that are not biographies. There is nothing in NFCC policy that remotely suggests that this is the case. | |||
| *It seems to me as if you didn't bother to read the file's summary, deleted it by mistake, and when challenged, invented bogus reasons to support your errornous actions rather than apologise and move on. Your most recent actions show that you have learned nothing in the interim. I would urge you to follow wikipedia policies in future. ] (]) 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems to me that you have no interest in complying with NFC policy, and prefer to cast aspersions on editors who enforce it. You provide no support for your claim that "nonfree image may be used for identification outside the subject's biography", because it is wholly unsupported by the governing policy and guidelines. ] (]) 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages NFCC policy is key and I have checked and there is nothing in policy that backs up your claim of improper use. I suggest you avoid compounding mistakes re-read policy. ] (]) 17:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::You need to find provisions of NFCC policy/guidelines which permit the use. There are myriad ways to fail the NFCC, far too many to be listed in the detail you insist on. ] (]) 18:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You specifically claim that non-free images can only be used in biographical articles, if such a specific claim were true, then there would be a specific mention of this in policy but there isn't even a hint suggesting what you claim is true. ] (]) 18:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That wasn't my claim. I pointed out that the standard rationale you used was limited to biographical articles, and that mutilating its text so that it no longer reflected policy. When you uploaded the image you said it was "for visual identification of the person in question, at the top of his/her biographical article". It's not being used for that, and you still provide no other policy-based rationale for its use. ] (]) 18:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The image was uploaded using the wizard, which was designed to assist editors not familiar with the process. The wizard provides a form of words to assist with WP:NFCC#8. These words are not cast in stone and any form of words can be used. Many editors don't even use the wizard and write their own non-free use rationale from scratch using ]. I prefer to use the wizard and then amended it to properly reflect the image's use. You regard this as mutilation, I call it complying with WP:NFCC#8. ] (]) 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's deceptive nonsense. You uploaded an image with a rationale for use in one article and changed it to a different article only after yout screwup was pointed out. And you still haven't cited anything in NFC policy to justify your claim that just because a person is mentioned in article a nonfree image may be used. There isn't any policy support for that. ] (]) 20:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == "Rationale contradicted by cursory Google search as well"? == | |||
| Hello there! | |||
| A few hours ago, you undid my efforts to merge the articles ] and ], but I'm struggling to understand your reasoning. My attempt to merge these two pages is based on the following motivation: | |||
| * The pages are nearly identical, i. e. these are two different pages for one and the same radio network. The only difference is that one is for their AM frequency and the other one is for their FM frequency, although they broadcast the same content on both frequencies. This is, to all appearances, unwanted data redundancy, isn't it? | |||
| * Both of them share the same callsign named ''KDEX'' in the FCC's AM/FM databases (compare over for AM and for FM). | |||
| Therefore, I tried to have ] removed, so that ] could be moved to ] and be edited accordingly to accommodate for the ''FM'' frequency band as well. | |||
| Could you please elaborate on what I did wrong at my attempt to merge these two pages? Thanks a lot! | |||
| Cheers, subsonic17 02:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *Well, to begin with, the fact that they currently broadcast the same content right now doesn't establish that they always have. or that they have a common history. If they were once independent operations, but later came under common ownership, merger of the articles probably wouldn't be appropriate. I think you need to establish much more than current common operations to justify merging the two articles. At the very least. talk page discussions are needed, and at the conclusion of the process, the superfluous articles would ordinarily not be deleted, but merely redirected. ] (]) 21:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Stop vandalizing "CMNF" article == | |||
| STOP unjustified wholesale deletion of text. Unsourced material is not taboo. I tell you that and you delete the text again saying once again that it's unsourced, but it doesn't matter. | |||
| I am not a Misplaced Pages editor. Therefore I do not know where to complain about your actions. Can you please tell me where can I complain about yours, as I see it, vandalism? (I'm entitled to my opinion, and I call what you do vandalism). | |||
| Please provide a LINK to a page where I can complain to encyclopedia authorities about your behavior. | |||
| Also stop using slang words like "SYNTH" in your description of your deletions. I am a good-faith visitor, not a regular editor, and I shouldn't be required to know your slang. I suspect that you use it to alienate non-regular editors. Don't forget that this is "ENCYCLOPEDIA ANYONE CAN EDIT". | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :But this is not the "encyclopedia where anyone can edit without regard to its content policies and guidelines". Given the number of times over the last two years IPs and SPAs have added back this material after its removal by experienced editors, in particular the linkspam in External links section, it's hard to take your claim of being a "good-faith visitor" seriously. ] (]) 19:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Don't forget a link to a page where I can complain to authorities about your vandalism. ] (]) 19:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unsourced content is a scourge to editors. Anyone who claims not to be a Misplaced Pages editor, and does not want to learn our policies and practices, should be left out in the cold when they add unsourced content. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" makes for a good slogan, but a lousy encyclopedia. For me, I would be happy to see IP's restricted to pending revisions, permanently. Let them edit - but with oversight. It would stick to the principle, but make fighting vandalism and SPA's a whole lot easier. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 20:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" makes for a good slogan, but a lousy encyclopedia." - WOW. Thankfully, it's not for you to decide. "Unsourced content is a scourge to editors." - EDITORS are a scourge for content that happily was there for 5-6 years and didn't offend no one but EDITORS. "Anyone who claims not to be a Misplaced Pages editor, and does not want to learn our policies and practices, should be left out in the cold" - wow again. THIS IS SO AGAINST OFFICIAL POLICIES. I will report you also. Since cowardly you and cowardly Wolfowitz decided not to ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION WHERE I CAN COMPLAIN, THUS REFUSING ME A LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH AUTHORITIES, I will find it myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents right? ] (]) 10:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am reporting you two. ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 10:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No there's not. Perhaps the IP came to their senses and realized the likely boomerang effect such a report would have?--]<sup>]</sup> 17:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Not YET. There's no rush. Read how scary the "boomerang effect" is to me right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ScrapIronIV#Please_help_with_vandalism I'm just taking my time. I need to put all their violations together - like denying the line of communication with authorities, publicly denouncing Misplaced Pages policies, bad faith mass-deletions etc. Also I'm male, so you can stop applying the wrong pronoun to me if you're educationally able™ (as if everyone with a nickname is gender-identifiable by their nick, like you, for example. Definitely not you, "Ponyo"). It's just my courtesy to give Balloo and Scrap time to prepare. | |||
| ::::::HEY COWARDS! (THIS MEANS Hullaballoo AND ScrapIron) YOUR CURRENT RESPONSE TO MY "Don't forget a link to a page where I can complain to authorities" BULLET-POINT IS, FOR SOME REASON, "Unsourced content is a scourge to editors". HOW ABOUT A REAL ANSWER? DO YOU AGREE IT SHOULD GO TO https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents or maybe posting at another section of Admins' noticeboard will have maximum effect and speedier discussion? THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO PROVE YOU'RE NOT COWARDLY WEAKLINGS. STEP FORWARD AND SAY <b>"I'M SURE WHAT I DONE IS RIGHT. I'M NOT AFRAID TO BE SCRUTINIZED".</b> ] (]) 13:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::There's gonna be a boomerang, alright. ]<sup>]</sup> 13:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't care, I haven't got a Wiki nickname and my IP is dynamic. Duh. ] (]) 13:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == The image is used at ] So Iam using it on this user box too == | |||
| The image is used at ] So Iam using it on this user box too . Kindly restore the image on this user box,--] (]) 07:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| * No. Just because a nonfree image is used appropriately in a particular article does not mean it is free for use elsewhere. Misplaced Pages policy governing use of nonfree images, in particular ]#9, prohibits the use of nonfree image outside articles and articlespace. In particular, nonfree images may not be displayed in userspace. Since userboxes are only placed in userspace, they may not include nonfree images. ] (]) 14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I left a comment about your recent edit at ]. ] (]) 20:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == An ] == | |||
| After making some rude and sarcastic remarks against you, I must apologize for it – sarcasm and ignorance make the editing environment toxic, and I did just exactly that Thanks for taking the time to rebut my close; your premises were valid and I just completely, improperly, and, without a single ounce of decorum of my own, ignored them. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 01:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for October 7== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Inaugural Playboy Nude Centerfolds == | |||
| I'm not sure if a secondary source can be found, but some research is necessary. ] (]) 04:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Declined speedy == | |||
| Hi Wolfy, | |||
| I see you the CSD G4 nomination of ]. Of course as a non-admin I can't see the deleted article, but the Saltzman1959 comment at ] sure does make it sound like it's the same "small comedy collective." Did you want to reconsider? ] 18:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Who did you get angry recently == | |||
| Feel free to look at the two early edits on 2015-10-25 in ]. ] (]) 00:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Somebody who's been trying to get ] deleted for the last month or so. Probably something to do with local or academic politics. ] (]) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Flute Solo== | |||
| Hi; I wonder if you could explain your decision to remove the piece by Brecht, since it has direct relevance to the text, having been mentioned specifically and used to illustrate his work as a good example of the art he's most famous for. I believe it has the right copyright label, and certainly falls within fair use. Best, ] (]) 00:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :First of all, it consists entirely of an image of text. It is, to say the least, rather difficult to maintain that a depiction of text "could not be conveyed in words", as the use rationale states. Second, even if you do not accept the principle in general, in this specific case the piece can be adequately expressed in text. Cage's ] accomplishes the task without using a nonfree file, and the same can be done here. I wouldn't deny that this falls within "fair use", but meeting fair use requirements isn't sufficient to satisfy the requirements of ] and ]. The WMF has set a very high bar limiting the use of nonfree content; the en-wiki standard is "''Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding''". That's a much more restrictive standard than fair use. "Merely" being an excellent illustration isn't enough to meet it. ] (]) 03:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == new user name == | |||
| You said that LB's harasser is working under a new user name. Is that something you know he is actually doing or is that just conjecture? ] (]) 18:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I said he's ''allowed'' to edit under a new username, since no sanctions were placed on him, and he had said he was considering returning under a different name. There's at least one shady account created since he left that shares some of his behaviours, but they aren't terribly distinctive and are clumsier than I'd have expected. Given the way that the anti-outing policy is being more tightly enforced these days, and that he exposed his own real-life identity on-wiki, I really can't be much more specific. ] (]) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Per ] "If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts." and "However, if an editor uses their new account to resume editing articles or topics in the same manner that resulted in harassment or a negative reputation in the first place (becoming involved in disputes, edit warring or other forms of disruptive editing), the editor will probably be recognized and connected to the old account. ". If linking two accounts is risking outing (due to one of the accounts previously being outed) CLEANSTART/SOCK pages should probably clarify that. | |||
| :::In any case, I understand your point, but your point presumes the answer to a question - that we know LB's harrasser. I personally agree that there was sufficient evidence, but the functionaries did not. You can't complain about the punishment, when they are stopped on the identification. One of the "not sufficiently proven" voices last time was Thydruulf who said something about if the identity had been considered conclusive enough there would almost definitely have been a site ban. | |||
| :::] (]) 19:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::One other comment, "even though that opportunity was denied to Lightbreather". Lightbreather's own foibles led to her sanctions. Her foibles do not justify the harassment, but neither does the harassment absolve her missteps. Had she been found blameless, I'm sure she would have been allowed (and taken) a clean start, but even her strongest defender in the committee (GW) found her at fault in numerous areas. Conflating the harassment with her own actions does nobody a service, not LB, and not greater womankind either. ] (]) 19:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There was an episode of '''on-wiki''' harassment, paralleling the comment directed at Malik Shabazz. There is no question whose account posted the comment involved. No action was taken. ] (]) 19:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm not sure which comment/editor you are referring to then. Was it brought up during the case? Was it used in any of the findings? ] (]) 21:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It was not mentioned, and apparently ignored, during the case. It occurred during the case (via edit summary). Lightbreather did complain to an admin about it, who sloughed it off. I don't know if she raised it directly with ArbComm. Since I'm not allowed to point it out directly, I'll draw this parallel . Very much like the comment directed at Malik Shabazz, a barb not so likely to be noticed if you weren't its target, but here there was no possibility it was inadvertent. ] (]) 21:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Well, Not being able to see the precise edit in question, its difficult to say for sure, but assuming it was something on par with the book you just linked to : I could certainly see someone being trouted over that, or used as additional evidence to weigh in against someone as a pattern of behavior, but it seems unlikely to draw severe or lengthy sanction on its own. ] (]) 22:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| And now its moot! ] (]) 13:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Indeed. A promising start to my day. ] (]) 14:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] arbitration case opened == | |||
| ''You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at ].'' You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested_contributors/Notification_list&oldid=688007321 --> | |||
| == ] retitled ] == | |||
| ''You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at ].'' You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Taking Down Pictures == | |||
| Hullaballoo: please explain to me, in plain english - not Misplaced Pages speak - the several circumstances under which an image can be used on wikipedia. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Hullaballoo: please read the following from the Misplaced Pages policy page which allows me to use this cover art: Images | |||
| Shortcut: | |||
| WP:NFCI | |||
| Some non-free images may be used on Misplaced Pages, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Misplaced Pages's own guidelines for non-free content. Non-free images that reasonably could be replaced by free content images are not suitable for Misplaced Pages. All non-free images must meet each non-free content criterion; failure to meet those overrides any acceptable allowance here. The following list is not exhaustive but contains the most common cases where non-free images may be used and is subject to the restrictions listed below at unacceptable use of images, notably §7 which forbids the use of press agency images when the image itself is not the subject of commentary. | |||
| Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You've answered your own question: '''not for identification without critical commentary'''. ] (]) 16:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Are you going to be civil and help me or are you not going to be helpful? well, it seems all i have to do to make you happy is include "critical commentary". Would you then leave this page alone? | |||
| :It's not civil for you to demand I drop everything I'm doing to "help" you haven't made yourself familiar with the basic WP guidelines. The general rule is that you can't use album covers to illustrate discographies, including lists of albums. See ] and ]#2. ] (]) 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hullabaloo: it is NOT civil to insinuate that i "demanded" anything. I merely asked a question: are you going to be civil? ...and helpful. I guess i have my answer. Please note that I have included a section consisting of CRITICAL COMMENTARY near the end of the article. Because the article now contains Critical Commentary - per wikipedia rules - i have now replaced all of the pictures. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Okay Mr. Hullaballo: even though the page now contains Critical Commentary, it seems you would like to harass me and purposefully damages this page. If you do not cease in your destructive behavior I will have no choice but to report you to the admins and request that you be blocked from Misplaced Pages. Again. I will give you 24 hours before I report you to the wikipedia admins. Please reconsider your harassment. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| Mr. Hullaballoo: a further indication of your wanton disregard for Misplaced Pages rules is that policy states conflicts are supposed to be DISCUSSED on the relevant TALK pages - not to immediately harass and bully and editor with repeated undos... you NEVER engaged in a discussion on the relevant TALK page. I have now requested that you be blocked. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| *Should I infer from the contradiction between your two previous comments that you are dishonest, or that you do not understand the difference between 24 hours and 24 minutes? ] (]) 18:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo): please understand that I accelerated my request to block you because, (a) your overly aggressive tactics, (b) your failure to discuss the issues on my and the pages talk page as clearly provided by wikipedia BRD guidelines, and (c) because you continued to persist in damaging the wikipedia article in question. Your persistent actions actions caused me to change my actions. As you 'handle" suggests, you see yourself as a wikipedia bully and your actions in this latest controversy is consistent with you tactics of bullying other editors. Bullying tactics are prohibited by wikipedia... please refer to wikipedia policies. ] (]) 18:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Zarembo, let me jump in here to let you know that pursuing this will in no way lead to a block for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I wouldn't say the same for you, however, as you are on the wrong side of policy here. No administrator is going to block an editor for removing images due to legitimate copyright concerns. Edit-warring to restore them however is another story. At this point you need to follow ]; using ALL CAPS and throwing around accusations of "bullying" when another editor advises you of your errors will not give you the end result you seek.--]<sup>]</sup> 19:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Problems with upload of File:Enemy Mine IASFM.jpg== | |||
| Thanks for uploading ''']'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Misplaced Pages, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator. | |||
| To add this information, click on ], then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on ]. | |||
| For more information on using images, see the following pages: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| Thank you for your cooperation. --] (]) 18:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Fiorina== | |||
| Why is it an nfcc violation?] (]) 00:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Replaceable nonfree image in BLP. Not even a shred of relevant sourced commentary. ] (]) 01:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Next time, I think you ought to refer specifically to what Parts of NFCC you're relying upon. Also, given the ongoing discussion at the talk page, why not participate at talk? If you’re referring to NFCC #1, there is no free equivalent showing her participation in this event. If you’re referring to NFCC #8, this non-free content significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, given that the image accompanies a sentence of text that says: "On September 3, 2008, Fiorina addressed the Republican National Convention." Does the image become acceptable in your opinion if I add a footnote to that sentence?] (]) 01:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::No. Your argument here has nothing to do do with our NFC standards. The text is perfectly sufficient and requires no visual "support". ] (]) 02:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I specifically referred to the specific criteria at ] and specifically asked you to specifically identity which of those specific criteria you are relying upon. I give up. Have a nice day.] (]) 02:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki> California]]) is an ] ] actress, ] and </nowiki>{{red|'''['''}}<nowiki>.</nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 1, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 15:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == G5 CSD reversal == | |||
| Hi. Not arguing with your decision, since clearly if they weren't banned when they created an article, then you are absolutely correct. But how would I know that in the future. What happened was that I had prodded another article by this same editor, and another editor G5'd it. Seeing that, I went to the other article this now banned editor had created, and did the same. Is there something I should be checking? Thanks. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Unless you're dealing with a sockpuppetry case or a topic ban, if they created the article under the name they were blocked/banned under, they created it before the block/ban. Once they're blocked/banned, they can't create articles under that username. If you're not sure, check the page history to get the date/time the article was created. Then click the contribs link for the creator, which will show the date/time for the most recent entry in their block log. Usually that takes care of it. ] (]) 03:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for November 3== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == deprod == | |||
| I have removed the {{tl|prod}} tag from ], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{tl|prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at ]. Thanks! <!-- ] --> ] (]) 19:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} This IP is serially deprodding articles without explanation, and I've reverted, but not about to get into an edit war. What are your suggestions for handling this on a longer term basis? ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm going to file an edit warring notice on them, since they aren't providing any explanations, and refuse to discussion the allegation that they're the sock of a blocked/banned user. I also think it's time to place a formal block request at ANI. ] (]) 21:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tpw}} Hello HW and SI. There have been at least two threads about this at ANI. Here ] and here ]. On the first one most of the articles were taken to AFD but I haven't followed what went on with the second one. I suspect you are both aware of this but I thought I'd leave the links in case they will be of use with any reports that you start. ]|] 21:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I put in my 2¢ worth, but having read the discussions, it really doesn't look like anything will be done. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == re 3RR report == | |||
| You said: | |||
| "refuses to address the claim in any forum" | |||
| Sorry but you are mistaken. If you believe I am the same editor that was objecting to PRODs yesterday then I addressed the claim by responding to it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Appealing_a_block&diff=next&oldid=688777507 . I see no need to continue responding to unfounded claims on other forums that suggest I am evading a block. I am not. | |||
| Thank you. ] (]) 21:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That's not addressing the claim, that's the evidence of it -- a virtual admission. ] (]) 21:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, it's not evidence. It's ridiculous that asking about possible unblock processes that protect the user's privacy (by not requiring them to use their email) is considered evidence of evasion or sockpuppetry. As I said in that linked reply, I have no account that is blocked. ] (]) 22:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, you just showed up here a few days ago and immediately became concerned about this. Perhaps you have a bridge I might be interested in purchasing, or some funds in a Nigerian bank account I could share in. ] (]) 22:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::: As I clearly said in the explanation, I am occasionally affected by blocks even though I am not the offending editor. So of course I was eventually going to ask about private unblocking processes. ] (]) 22:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Gee, did your roommate get you blocked again? ] (]) 22:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No, ]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == "disruptive editing" == | |||
| Please stop reverting my edits across various articles. Thank you. ] (]) 00:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *No. Please stop disruptively editing Misplaced Pages to retaliate for what is likely your well-justified block or ban. ] (]) 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :* I am not blocked or banned. There is no evasion. I will not continue to argue this ridiculous point. ] (]) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::And, of course, no blocked/banned user would ever deny it. ] (]) 00:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hopping IP is clearly ] and has been reported. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 01:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == deprod 2 == | |||
| I have removed the {{tl|prod}} tag from ], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{tl|prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at ]. Thanks! <!-- ] --> ] (]) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 23:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Don't get snippy. You only declined my Speedy on the page. No other speedy was placed on the page. The page was created with a speedy to begin with because the page keeps getting deleted. ] (]) 06:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Edit War== | |||
| Cut the BS - Leave the Kahlo painting alone. See the talk page here , thats been there for years. She is one of the most important 20th century artists making self-portraits. You should read a book...] (]) 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Your inept attempt at bullying, and your incivility, is noted. You make no attempt to justify inclusion of the image under our actual non-free use policy. The discussion you point to is simply your own assertion that an issue has been settled, when review of the actual discussions show that no agreement was reached. In any event, a 2007 discussion cannot establish that the use meets our current NFC/NFCC policy and guidelines, and a review of the file page history shows that multiple users have objected to its use in this article, while only you have supported it. Even in the 2007, while there clearly was consensus to include the image in articles centered on Kahlo and her work, there was no consensus to include it in other articles, particularly those without well-sourced commentary related to the specific topics of the articles. ] (]) 16:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Where is the assertion of notability? She's written a book which has yet to be published. Otherwise, my career stints at the Royal Opera House & with the NT make me about as notable.] (]) 15:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please learn what the criteria for speedy deletion are. Only an assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, is required to survive A7. Selling a book to a major trade publisher and having it definitely placed on its publication schedule is a sufficient assertion of significance. ] (]) 16:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : A credible asserion of notability, I think. Anyway, looks like this bit of promotion is for the dumper.] (]) 14:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Kurt Holobaugh== | |||
| Actually the close in 2013 specifically referred to re-creation after fighting three times for top tier organisation to meet ] which the subject has yet to do.] (]) 16:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :I was referring to the general principle rather than the specific example. Since the article now claims winning a notable title subsequent to the AFD, the db-repost was clearly inappropriate. ] (]) 16:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::A second tier title is not considered notable according to ] but I see your point. Just means a second AfD.] (]) 16:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Football == | |||
| Why did you delete in ] seasons, the pictures of Steaua, because their previous name was CCA București and CSAC București ?? | |||
| Can you upload the old emblem then?--] (]) 00:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :The image I deleted was nonfree (under copyright), and could only be used to identify a team in an article where the team waas the article subject, as specified on the file page for the image. If the old emblem is a free image -- and it's probably not, since most team logos aren't -- I suppose you could substitute it in the articles. ] (]) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Kevinodonnell1976.jpg== | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == November 2015 == | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I have automatically detected that <span class="plainlinks"> to ] may have broken the ] by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .</span> | |||
| :List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page: | |||
| *<nowiki>1931 novel '']''.<ref>J. Gardiner, "Warp Drive - From Imagination to Reality", </nowiki>{{red|'''['''}}<nowiki>, vol. 61, p. 353-357 (2008)</ref></nowiki> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow ]. Thanks, <!-- (0, 1, 0, 0) --><!-- User:BracketBot/inform -->] (]) 18:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Have you ever left a nice message foe anybody? Can you do nothing but find fault? ] (]) 18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == It girls == | |||
| Hi Hullaballoo. The ] article doesn't really deserve the time, but I'm curious as to how to deal with the "widely referred to as" thing. She's clearly widely referred to as an "it girl". But there likely aren't any sources that say "widely". | |||
| How about changing it to ''Bonas has been called an "It girl".''? ] (]) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for November 16== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 10:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Greater Rayalaseema== | |||
| {{Ping|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}}How to propose it. ] can also help. It is purely invented. ''G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes'' Will it be applicable?--] (]) 15:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Just use a standard deletion process, like ] or ]. This is the sort of claim that requires an opportunity for discussion. ] (]) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Well, this should be interesting == | |||
| ] | |||
| If you say anything about this here, please place comments under this heading. Yes, I know this isn't going to be a successful candidacy, but more of a Pyrrhic defeat. ] (]) 17:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Heh heh. I've never heard the phrase Pyrrhic defeat before. :-) But can one ask, what is the point of standing? Are you an issues-candidate that wants to bring awareness of the issues up? If so, what are the issues, as in specifically, what would you like the new crop of arbs to do/change/accomplish? Thanks, ] (]) 20:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I would say there are a million more pleasant things to do with your time than answer ACE questions. But, I'm impressed with everyone who gives it a go! <font face="Papyrus" size="3" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ''Signpost'' inquiry == | |||
| Hi, I've emailed you (via Commons) on an election-related matter. ] ] 10:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :A reminder that if you wish to be included in the survey, we'll need to receive your response within 8–12 hours. ] ] 03:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == See: ] == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.--] (]) 09:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == survey response withdrawn? == | |||
| Hello, from your comment at the ] thread, I was under the impression that you did not wish your answers to be used? Or have you changed your mind, and decided to leave them in? Please see ] which went live a short time ago, and also the thread at ] concerning the broader matter. ] (]) 23:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==AEL FC== | |||
| Hello.. I am the author of the page AEL FC. Be sure that i perfectly know better than you about the club and the current photo confirms with copyright rights. Please respect my work and do not restore again and again or i will block you as many other users did recently. Thanx. | |||
| DON'T YOU HAVE SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING TO DO IN YOUR LIFE THAN DELETING OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK? | |||
| Orphaned non-free image File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg | |||
| ⚠ | |||
| Thanks for uploading File:Dimitrios Koukoulitsios - Dimitrios Mousiaris.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You wrote that ] "just survived AfD". Well... there was ''not a single'' !vote at the AfD. As for all practical reasons discussion did not happen (AfD stands for "articles for ''discussion''") and the article still satisfied CSD, I tagged it accordingly. Maybe AfD could have been kept open a little longer, until other editors commented. I now see that it was a mistake on my part to AfD the page in the first place instead of CSD'in it - I just wanted to be kind. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;">] ]</span> 18:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692039973 --> | |||
| :I think HW probably knows about the election... --] (]) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice: Speedy deletion ] == | |||
| Yo have removed speedy deletion tags on this article, that was placed by different editors, TWICE, and you have done the same tactics, repeatedly, on other articles too. That's unacceptable by Misplaced Pages rules.<br /> | |||
| If you disagree with other editors, please explain your point in the articles' talk page; otherwise, it might be considered as an edit war on you part.<br /> | |||
| Also, some of your comments to other editors are not that great either. Keep in mind that everything in Misplaced Pages is recorded. Thank you.<br /> | |||
| ] ] to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a ] tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: '''Contest this speedy deletion''' which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case '''''on the article's talk page'''''. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-speedy1 --> ]'''</span> 17:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Read ] again. Any editor except the article creator can remove a speedy tag. For most speedy tags, including the one at issue here, a declined speedy should not be placed again; instead, standard deletion processes should be employed. And somebody like you, who just placed a phony warning on my page with no basis in fact, has no business complaining about statements by other editors. ] (]) 18:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| <br /> | |||
| * I am really not impressed with you work or your attitude ] (]). You are constantly pushing your POV with complete disregard and disrespect to other editors. You are ignoring talk pages and consensus from other editors, and you are constantly reverting everybody; you accept nothing but your own edits, and you are hounding editors with half-obscenities and disparaging remarks. You are in clear violation of Misplaced Pages ] and ], which are especially concerning, since you were given unjustly reviewer rights. I am few strokes away from filling a formal complaint with the administrates, to revert your reviewer rights among other complains, and believe me, I already have a whole list of editors who would support my claims and who are extremely unhappy with you. If I hear one more nasty word out of your mouth, any disparaging remarks toward me on any any of the edits that I do, any more of your personal remarks like "silly", "hasty", "phony", or if you try to again to deny the obvious abuse, or try to intimidate me with your Big Bad Wolfowitz attitude, then that's will be it. '''THIS ABUSE MOST STOP NOW'''. ]'''</span> 17:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*You've been editing substantively here for less than a month. It's evident your understanding of deletion policies and practices is grossly deficient. Earlier today, for example, you placed a vandalism tag on ] (since deleted over copyright issues), even though it clearly wasn't vandalism. You placed a PROD tag on ], even though it plainly wasn't PROD-eligible, since it had just survived an AFD. Earlier this week, you placed a db-repost tag on ] even though it had never been through AFD. Your edit history shows a practice of targeting new editors' first efforts for deletion without giving them a decent opportunity to complete work on their first articles, and the term "hasty" is more than appropriate in that context. I am not the only experienced editor who has turned down your deletion requests, and you would do well to learn from the comments you are receiving, unwelcome as you may find them. ] (]) 17:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Anya Major == | |||
| ] doesn't exist. What did you mean to point to? I tried ], but that has two numbers separated by a period. I don't care that the image is there or not, I just want to know why for future reference. ] (]) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry for the typo; the link is ]#6. The principle is that, to minimize the use of nonfree content, it's preferable to link to an article where the nonfree content is the central subject rather than reuse the nonfree content in multiple articles. Since we have a standalone content about the commercial, linked in the bio, the nonfree image shouldn't be repeated there. ] (]) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fair enough. Ignorance fought. Thanks! ] (]) 01:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Barry Dufour == | |||
| Hi, I have a question. Not trying to pick a fight, just to understand. You removed the "BLP PROD" tag from ] with the comment "article has sufficient referencing to defeat BLPPROD". But this article has no references at all, and it has never had any - at least not in the sense of anything that shows up in the {{tl|Reflist}}. So I would be interested to understand what references your comment referred to.--] (]) 02:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Quick answer before I fall asleep. BLPPROD "requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, '''external links''', etc.) The article contained an external link, to the subject's university profile. The university may not be Oxbridge or Ivy calibre, but it's a reputable institution which can be counted on to vet its professors (and editing a scholarly book for Cambridge University Press also signals significant credentials). So I think the article was not only sufficiently sourced to defeat the BLPPROD, but to support a reasonable assertion of notability. ] (]) 05:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{smiley}} Thanks for that - makes sense to me! And I learned something, so it's a good day.--] (]) 07:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Userbox:Music/Artist=Paloma Faith == | |||
| Hi, Thanks for your input. Can you please explain how you know the image is ]? Thankyou. ] (]) 11:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Because it's identified as a nonfree image on ]. More broadly, you need to establish that an image is free before placing i in userspace; if you don't know or can't tell, don't display it in userspace. ] (]) 23:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. I will do as you have advised next time. ] (]) 12:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Fornari == | |||
| Why did you removed the template? Don`t you see the link that I give? It is clearly a copyvio and the text is taken from the International dictionary of psychoanalysis. --] (]) 09:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : {{stalker}} I compared the article with the entry on Franco Fornari in the International dictionary of psychoanalysis, and although the article flow closely follows the encyclopaedia, it has been modified so much that it cannot be termed a copyvio. ] ] 12:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: Kashmiri is pretty much on target. From ]: For equivocal cases which do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or ''close paraphrasing''), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{Tls|Copyvio|2=url=''insert URL here''}}, and the page should be listed at ]. Please consult ] for other instructions. Looking at the history, if there is a copyvio, it happened three years ago, when the article was translated from the it-wiki version (if that article was merely a translation of the source cited in the speedy nom.) This isn't a simple enough determination to justify speedy deletion, especially since there's been nontrivial intervening editing since 2012. If you think this is a translation of a translation, which would probably be a copyvio, if the translations were close enough, you should follow the non-speedy process described in ]. ] (]) 20:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == pls join me == | |||
| ...] -- ] (]) 00:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Case amendment request == | |||
| Your amendment request has been archived at ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]] 15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == "why do editors put A7 on pages like this?" == | |||
| So instead of either dropping me a message or just tagging G3, you decided to put a snarky remark in the edit summary? Yes, I made a mistake and it should have been a G3, no need to be uncivil about it -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Why don't you try assuming good faith? I have seen similar bad tagging, over and over and over, with A7 stuck on flagrant attack pages and the most obvious of hoaxes. I hit about five of them in five minutes today, and I think this one was the worst. Wasn't this an article "about" somebody who was supposedly notable for walking on other planets? If you're tagging so rapidly you didn't notice that, you need to slow down. ] (]) 02:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Halime Sultan == | |||
| This whole Story is a fiction, there is no any reliable source given that she was exist. | |||
| There is no Valide (Queen Mother) who named Halime Sultan in the Ottoman Empire. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :That may well be so, but it's not blatant enough to justify speedy deletion. ] (]) 06:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Removal of CSD tags and reasons given by you == | |||
| *Hello ], an article ] was created on 9 Dec 15 (Slovenian metal band formed in 2015) which was tagged for CSD by me. You removed the CSD tag citing "remove speedy, article includes a credible claim of significance (formed by notable musician), a lower standard than notability". Did you check who that founding "notable musician" is? As per the article, the band was established in 2015 by ] in Gimnazija Poljane. Following are some details for you; | |||
| :*Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski (1 Mar 1899 – 8 Mar 1972) was a German ''SS-]'' (Army General) and '''not''' a musician. He died 43 years before the claimed band was formed. | |||
| :*] is a '''grammar school''' in ]. | |||
| :*The article "Kampfmaschine" does not cite a single source. | |||
| Your contributions are appreciated and are welcome but please be cautious of your edits.''']]''' 11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*I happen to notice that your talkpage has multiple messages where several people have objected about removal of CSD and PROD. Just a friendly and unsolicited advice (on GF), slow down and be careful before you get reported by someone to admins.''']]''' 11:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You placed an inaccurate speedy on an article. The ] article included apparently plausible claims of notability, but you tagged it as A7. Given the information you provided here (but not before), you should have placed a G3 (vandalism/hoax) tag on the article, or (better) a PROD tag, since determining the article to be a hoax requires some checking. It's not my responsibility to determine whether any other reason for deletion exists when removing an inaccurate speedy tag. ] (]) 15:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I placed an inaccurate notice???? Are you serious? Apart from the ANI discussion involving you, there are multiple editors who are complaining about your CSD / PROD removal issues. It is very much '''YOUR''' responsibility to determine and find facts before you remove any tags from an article; make no mistakes with that. Did you even bother to check what the page and the claims were all about? I don't think so.''']]''' 17:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I'm serious, and rather than continuing to bitch about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you would be better advised to note that the uninvolved editors who responded at ANI found nothing inappropriate about my tag removals. Your own speedy tagging, however, is too often inappropriate; here , for example, you tagged a sportsman who participated in the US national championship in his sport, which is clearly an assertion of notability, not merely significance; even worse, you tagged the article ''four minutes'' after the creator began writing it, without affording them a decent opportunity to complete their work. At ], you missed the point that the article was an obvious attack page, which should have been tagged that way to ensure rapid administrator action. You need to be more careful in your tagging. ] (]) 19:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == December 2015 == | |||
| <s>] Please stop your ]. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at ], you may be ]. ''It's not the first time that you remove AfD. Please note that you are not allowed to do this and it is up to an admin to decide on validity.''<!-- Template:uw-speedy3 --> ] ] 13:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)</s> ''Update: matter has been discussed at ANI and this notice is no longer needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz prefers to leave it here for reference purposes.</s> ] ] 17:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] ] 13:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Nairobi Sailcat == | |||
| FYI ] is at AfD now... ] (]) 03:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *Why are you so goddamn insistent on ]-ing a new editor who made a good faith effort to write an article and got tag-slammed before he had decent chance to finish working on their first article? The ferality of new page patrollers who would rather collect scalps than actually improve Misplaced Pages absolutely disgusts me. In terms of complying with ], what sources did you check to reach your conclusion, since you presented not one shred of reasoned analysis? ] (]) 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :*If you can find significant coverage in reliable sources that's independent, I will of course withdraw my nomination... I could not find anything, so it's at AfD. ] (]) 04:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::*So you're acknowledging you didn't comply with ], right? ] (]) 05:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Please stop making assumptions about me that aren't true. The simple fact is ] is non-notable and is at AfD because of a lack of reliable sources. Basic stuff. ] (]) 14:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You haven't made a reasonable attempt to find them, and the article creator wasn't given a decent opportunity to work on the article. Period. You can shout and wave your hands all you want, but that's the bottom line. ] (]) 14:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::FYI - Now deleted at AfD ] (]) 10:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Yep. More editors were forced to waste their time on pointless discussion when outcome was predictable. Simply, ] is not a justification to keeping an article, contrary to what HW suggests. ] ] 12:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} I have to agree Kashmiri, but I've already been called a troll by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, so I doubt he will listen. Ah well... ] (]) 12:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for December 12== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added links pointing to ] and ] | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 12:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy Deletion of ] == | |||
| There is no evidence that this movie exists after googling. I think it's eligible for either G3 or A7. Thanks for replying. ] (]) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :G3 is fine (I prefer to use db-hoax, so it's clearer for the reviewing admin). But A7 is reserved for "real" subjects, and expressly excludes creative works. ] (]) 00:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting to join a debate for ] == | |||
| {{ping|Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz}} I'm requesting you to join this . Your comment is valuable to us. Please help us reach a consensus. Thanks -] (]) 19:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Kings in Darkness == | |||
| Why, Hullabaloo, did you remove the four-line poem from the conclusion of the story? It is not an external poem, it is an integral part of the story, written by a character in the tale. it's a part of it and should remain there. Thanks. Robert Fraser 04:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :It's quoted, therefore nonfree, and isn't essential to understand the plot summary. If it were just prose I might not have flagged it, but the standards for poetry (like song lyrics) are stricter. ] (]) 04:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You saved another article of that user, can you see if you could salvage this mess? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 07:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I declined your speedy deletion request on ] and I essentially nuked all edits to that article made in December. The article has existed since March 2007 and the negative content was only added in December. In the future, before tagging for CSD G10, make sure that the article is actually a newly created article. For existing articles, the negative content should simply be reverted. Thanks. ] (]) 02:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Aria Giovanni == | |||
| Can you please tell me why you restored the page without the informations I added with sources? Thanks. --] (]) 16:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Because, as I rather plainly stated in the edit summary, IMDB does not meet the standards for reliable sources as prescribed in ], at least for biographical claims. There is an established consensus on this point. ] (]) 16:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I was wondering if you could reconsider your decline of the speedy nomination on ]. You said, "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion", but the two sources (Cricinfo and Cricket Archive) have almost identical information. Moreover, I am certain that every regular editor of cricket pages is familiar with both these sources, and the deletion discussion was almost certainly conducted on the basis of checking both sources. (I know I did.) Moreover, the deletion arguments included "Google search only brings up trivial statistics pages", so it is clear that both sources were familiar with at least some (and probably all) editors. It strikes me as bad practice to allow the re-creation articles deleted at AfD merely because a trivial reference has been added. ]] (]) 19:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :This is an attempt to twist a scenario in order to make a ] which is quite invalid. ''ESPNcricinfo'' and ''CricketArchive'' are independent of each other and are not always in accord. Their agreement about Perera is verification of each other's content. They are both reputable sources widely used on WP by CRIC project members. The original "one-line" stub about Perera did not contain inline citations and did not mention ''ESPNcricinfo'' at all while ''CricketArchive'' was merely included in the external links section. As such, it was arguably fair enough that it was deleted because notability was not properly established and an additional constraint arose in the AfD because no one thought to mention ]. The new version of Perera uses inline citations and provides extra information including linkages for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with Sri Lankan cricket. To say that the two sources are "trivial" is ludicrous. They are substantial sources. Your decision to refuse the speedy deletion was the correct one, especially as a significant new source confirms the information provided by the significant "old" source. Thanks very much. <b>] | <sup><i>]</i></sup></b> 21:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::Jack makes the point I would have made, perhaps more clearly han I might. ] (]) 18:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Emma Watson== | |||
| I have {{diff2|695674450|reverted}} your {{diff2|695641147|edit}} to ]. My reasons: "college students dating classmates" usually are not encyclopedic—except when one's an actress of international acclaim and the other accompanies her to a major, highly publicized entertainment event. Her romance—and, more specifically, her breakup—with a notable athlete was widely covered; Watson herself addressed the inaccuracies of the article published by '']'', a reputable source that, as do they all, got something wrong. Therefore, in my view, this is not gossip-mongering, and certainly is not insignificant. Cheers! —]/] 🖖 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == A beer for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for retaining Munnad college. ] (]) 02:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for December 19== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to ]. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| :] ( | ) | |||
| ::added a link pointing to ] | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==''Season's Greetings''== | |||
| ] '''''To You and Yours!''''' | |||
| ] (]) 15:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Czolgolz/List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients == | |||
| This was one of my favorite articles that was deleted, and I'm just trying to preserve it. How do I make this right? ] (]) 17:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :As I recall, the standard process is to either ask the deleting admin to userfy a copy for you or to place a request for userfication at ]. Standard licensing requirements mean that the prior edit history must be preserved, so a simple cut-and-paste isn't allowed. ] (]) 17:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's now gone. Tell me, sir, do you create anything on Misplaced Pages, or simply destroy? Do you edit to spread knowledge, or are you merely a bureaucrat? ] (]) 17:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given that I told you, above, how to handle the matter properly, in a very simple way, and you ignored the advice, you really have no business complaining. Why aren't you interested in complying with Misplaced Pages's straightforward copyright/licensing requirements? ] (]) 17:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Jean Isherwood== | |||
| I haven't been on Misplaced Pages for a while so this has just come to my attention. I notice that you deleted several images by that artist, which were being used by agreement with the artist' heir and executor, Jacqueline Dabron. The Japonica indicates the artist's great skill as a still life painter. The book cover relates directly to her last major project. An Illustration by Isherwood appears on the cover. | |||
| I would like the pictures restored. | |||
| ] (]) 18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| "By arrangement with" and similar permissions which provide for Misplaced Pages-only use, or are otherwise limited, aren't acceptable. Please review ] and ]. Unless the artist's representatives are willing to provide a CC-license allowing for both commercial reuse and modification, which likely wouldn't be prudent for them to do, standard NFCC limits preclude use of the array of images. ] (]) 19:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Not speedy? == | |||
| Hello. | |||
| Why was it not speedy? | |||
| Regards. | |||
| ] (]) 17:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Because there's no indication this is noncontroversial. Try opening a discussion on the article talk page first. ] (]) 17:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you'd cared to look in the target article or the ] article, you would have seen that this is uncontroversial. The last name is spelled with one 'r', and the title with two. Maybe the name ] rings a bell? | |||
| ::But allright, I'll make it an RM instaed. | |||
| ::] (]) 17:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::: {{ping|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz}} No it is non-controversial. Reversing redirects is done on a routine basis and does not require lengthy discussions, except in rare cases. Undoing your speedy removal. ] ] 18:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Arguing about whether something is noncontroversial is pretty much the paradigm of a self-defeating argument. ] (]) 18:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That could of course be said, but if the argument that says it's controversial is founded on a mistake, then it's still uncontroversial. However, both of you, let the RM run its course. No need for a silly edit-war on a redirect. Big Bad W, if you object, do so in the RM discussion. | |||
| :::::] (]) 18:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: It's uncontroversial for editors knowledgeable of the subject, like {{u|HandsomeFella}} or {{u|JMHamo}}. Big Bad Wolfowitz seems only set on removing speedy nominations added by knowledgeable editors, often without having even faint understanding of the topics (abundant evidence on this page) - thus forcing many people to waste their time at AfD. Only the last week has seen several of his/her reverted speedies finally deleted after ''non-controversial'' AfD procedure. Sure it is ] apart from disparaging towards fellow editors who make decision on tagging, but what can you do? ] ] 23:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I suggest we all drop it, and let the RM run its course. ] (]) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've tried to let things drop, but kashmiri has been on a weird little wikijihad even since I declined a few of his speedies, most conspicuously his A7 nomination of a professor at Harvard Medical School , which began with improperly replacing the declined speedy , placing a false accusation that I was removing speedy tags from articles I had created on my talk page , filing a spurious and quickly rejected ANI complaint , filing an AFD that was soundly and unanimously rejected , and committing a WP:OUTING violation against a contributor to the article. And over the last week or so, he's been jumping into, and trying to inflame, other discussions/disputes I've been involved with. Like this one. ] (]) 00:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == China Babu == | |||
| You are correct that {{noping|Rajeshbieee}} was only blocked recently, well after ] was created; but the block was for socking, and the sock-master is a different account, <s>blocked well before. See .</s> Therefore, Rajeshbieee is evading a block, and ''all'' their creations are G5 eligible. I do not intend tagging them all, but I am tagging those decidedly not worth rescuing, per discussion at ]. Could you please self-revert ? Regards, ] (]) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Correction; they were indeed much before the current creations, but their ''indefinite'' block was only this year. Considering that an admin asked folks to do the tagging, you can probably see why I made that mistake, not to mention that another admin accepted the same tag for a different creation by the same user, ]. In any case, since replacing the tag would now be inappropriate on my part, I'm prodding both the articles on which you reverted me. ] (]) 18:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :You're right in that it's a really messy situation. I've followed up at ANI. ] (]) 18:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|CatcherStorm|Speedy deletion nomination of Sangdun Choi|ts=03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] ] 03:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Carla Maria Puccini == | |||
| Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I, in my steward's and meta's checkuser's capacity, confirm that any substantial contributions on the page (which was created under a different name in order to "fool" my watchlist) has been made by BDA. --] (]) 12:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] case closed == | |||
| ''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.'' | |||
| The {{RFARlinks|Arbitration enforcement 2}} has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| 1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the ] case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at ] and be kept open for at least 24 hours. | |||
| 3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished. | |||
| 6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">] (])</span> 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Discuss this at: ''']''' | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Kharkiv07@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kharkiv07/List_1&oldid=696701020 --> | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for December 30== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Warning== | |||
| Hey Mr. Why are you continuously wasting your time after my userboxes? You are not gonna decide what I'm gonna keep or delete in my userbox. You simply mind your own business and stop editing or reverting any edits on my userboxes. — '''''Swastik Chakraborty''''' ] 12:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :If you persist in adding nonfree images to userboxes, templates, or other pages where they are not allowed under ]#9, you are likely to have your editing privileges suspended. Posting phony warnings on user talk pages only increases the likelihood that you will be sanctioned. ] (]) 16:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year == | |||
| <div style="padding: 10px; background: #fff2a8; border: 5px dashed green; border-radius: 6px;" align="center"> | |||
| ]] | |||
| <br /> <br /> | |||
| <big>'''Happy New Year!'''</big> | |||
| Warmest wishes for the new year from <span style="font-family: sylfaen">]/]</span> 00:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| {{clear}} | {{clear}} | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| --<span style="font-family: Corbel;"><i>Gpkp</i></span><small style="color:#555"> ''] • ] • ]</span>]''</small> 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Hannesbok.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> ―] ] 21:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year, Wolf! == | |||
| == File:Ship of Ishtar.jpg listed for discussion == | |||
| {| align=center style="width:70%; font-family:Georgia, serif; {{Round corners}}; border:DarkGoldenrod solid 3px; padding:2px; background:white; " | |||
| ] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC) | |||
| | style="width: 15%" | ]{{Left|{{Small|(], 1922)}}}} | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| | style="width: 40%"; align="center" | <div class="plainlinks"><br>''Wolf, I wish you and those dear to you<br>] in a''<br><div class="plainlinks"><br><big style="color: #B8860B;">'''{{Smallcaps|Happy New Year 2016!}}'''</big><br></font><br>''Best regards,''<br>] ] 03:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)<br><br> | |||
| <div class="afd-notice"> | |||
| {{resize|80%|{{show | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| |Pass on! | |||
| | | |||
| {{Center|Send this greeting by adding <code>{{tlsu|User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear}}</code> to user talk pages.}} | |||
| {{Center|] Automatic level-2 heading and auto-signing included.}} | |||
| }}}} | |||
| | style="width: 15%" | ]{{Right|{{Small|(Unknown artist, ], 1916)}}}} | |||
| |} | |||
| <!-- User:Sam Sailor/Templates/HappyNewYear --> | |||
| == Speedy Tags == | |||
| I've just seen you've removed the ] tag from a page (]). However, please note that both Latin America's Next Top Model and Latin's Next Top Model (cycle 2) have both been speedied. Could you possibly tell me how the linked article is not suitable for CSD ]? Also with another article you've removed the speedy tag for is ] which, granted, may not be ] but could still be ]. Would the latter article be A7? ] (]) 14:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry, Wolfowitz. Misplaced Pages logged me out half way through making that comment. It's me by the way. <span>]</span> <sup>{ ] } { ] }</sup> 14:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually, Both articles weren't A3, they were ]. Remarking Cycle 1 as G3 now. <span>]</span> <sup>{ ] } { ] }</sup> 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *You need to take much more care in placing speedy deletion nominations, and should stop tagging articles moments after their creation, while new editors are still trying to write them. You tagged ] '''one minute''' after the article creator had written their first sentence. You tagged an article with rathr lengthy substantive content as A3. You tagged articles on actual, living people as db-madeup. The speedy deletion process is not a license to randomly tag substandard articles for deletion without reasonably and accurately evaluating their content. ] (]) 17:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Ballantine441.jpg== | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 03:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2016 == | |||
| ] ] to Misplaced Pages. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a ] tag from ], a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: '''Contest this speedy deletion''' which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case '''''on the article's ]'''''. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-speedy1 --> ] (]) 20:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that one or more of ] to ] has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| *'''You lie'''. ] (]) 20:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 20:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 20:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 20:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == January 2016 == | |||
| ] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] Please stop your ]. If you continue to ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism3 --> ] (]) 20:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ANI notification == | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 00:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for January 6== | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] ( | ). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 09:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Speedy tags == | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| I noticed you've had some bother with people moaning about your tag removals. I too had ] not long ago, and also received threats over it. So much for ] eh? ] (]) 00:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. | |||
| == Samantha Ryan == | |||
| <!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| How is it "multiple BLP" violations when the information is well sourced from reliable and valid sources? | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 17:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you kidding? Have you ever read ]. Unverified accusations from a Twitter post are not "well sourced from reliable and valid sources". Neither are statements from a self-published book. Under you understand such basic points, you have no business editing BLPs. ] (]) 17:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| But how is "Off the Set: Porn Stars and Their Partners" by Paulie & Pauline a "self-published book"? You do understand it was released by Aural Pink Press, LLC., right? Not in any way is it associated to either Lockwood or Ryan. Also, how is Ryan's statement that she has retired from the industry an "unverified accusation"? Do not throw the baby out with the bathwater when reverting edits.] (]) 18:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :Stop playing games; this is borderline trolling. "Aural Pink Press" is owned/operated by Paulie and Pauline Photography. It publishes only books (probably just one) they author. That's a paradigm of the self-published source. ] (]) 19:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Please try and act civil and stop throwing out wanton accusations for effect. It is not uncommon for photographers to release their work through their own studios, you know this. The reasons being that the market for photography books is limited. Also, the very premise of the book are couples in a relationship, thus it is not making any "claims" about third parties. All claims are thus related to the source so to speak. | |||
| The article ] has been ] because of the following concern: | |||
| And you still haven't answered my question how you motivate removing Ryan's statement about her retirement.] (]) 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| <blockquote>'''Not notable. Most of the current sources are primary or not independent. ] (]) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)'''</blockquote> | |||
| :Stop wasting my time. Go read the relevant policy/guideline pages, particularly ] and ], carefully. Your failure to evidence awareness of these basic policies is hardly suggestive of good faith. ] (]) 20:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| How do you say that? Here's what ] says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Ryan's claim on twitter that she has retired is clearly acceptable under these rules. And please stop making implicit threats. I am reaching out to you on your page to discuss this matter in a due and proper manner.] (]) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :That's nice, but irrelevant. If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there. You've been editing since 2010, and somehow haven't figured out BLP basics yet? That's hardly convincing. ] (]) 21:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Who said anything about Paulie and Pauline? The section I'm referring to is the statement Ryan made on her own Twitter page about herself. By BLP rules, such references are acceptable.] (]) 21:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :It's also about other people, and therefore can't be used like you want to. In general, you can't just parrot unverified accusations from self-published sources. Your talk page shoes a long-term pattern of willful blindness to BLP basics, and I'm not inclined to waste any more term on a tendentious editor who's plainly unwilling to learn. ] (]) 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| I'm talking about one twitter post in particular. All she says in that one particular post is that she has retired. It does not mention anyone else and the statement is solely about her. How is that a "violation" of BLP? The very point I am discussing this with you also invalidates your argument of me "not wanting to learn". I see one thing in the guideline, and you make a different interpretation. Hardly extraordinary that I ask you to clarify on the matter, is it?] (]) 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ]. | |||
| Also, you said earlier "If anyone ever writes an article about "Paulie and Pauline", maybe you can use it as a source there". Well, someone has, here: http://www.sfgate.com/living/article/Porn-Stars-In-Love-Violet-Blue-Off-The-Set-2541129.php#photo-2072919. Would you be prepared to accept that as a source? Can you please try to answer without resorting to rudeness?] (]) 22:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course not. It doesn't mention Samantha Ryan. Go away. ] (]) 22:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ]. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> | |||
| Your is mistaken. Although two refs were apparently added, one was to Misplaced Pages itself and neither of the two mention the subject of the article, as noted . The BLPProd tag should therefore remain in place. ] (]) 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :No, the summary was correct. You placed the bBLPPROD roughly one minute after a new user began writing. That's just plainly inappropriate. and very bad practice. When they'd finished writing their text, five minutes later, the article may have been badly referenced, but wasn't eligible for an initial BLPPROD. The surviving ref did mention the subject of the article, but the inexperienced editor didn't get the form right. Don't show so much enthusiasm for kicking inexperienced editors around. ] (]) 00:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| '''<span style="color: red;">This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual page for details.</span>''' Thanks, ] (]) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == Riley Reid == | |||
| ==Concern regarding ]== | |||
| 3RR. Take it to talk with Rebecca. Discuss it per ] ] (]) 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ] Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that ], a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months ], so if you wish to retain the page, please ] again or ] that it be moved to your userspace. | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Drunkards walk ret.jpg== | |||
| <span style="font-size:32px; line-height:1em">''']'''</span> Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| If the page has already been deleted, you can ] so you can continue working on it. | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 20:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Johnwcampbell1965.jpg== | |||
| ] | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 22:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Dowd & Shriver == | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:High place cabell.JPG== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:06, 22 May 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has not edited Misplaced Pages 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. |
Excessive images found on Giant Killers (EP)
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)
- 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)
Removal of context along with unfree images
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)
- 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)
Need some help tracking down a ref
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)
- 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
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)
- 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)
- That article seems to be behind a paywall - all I can see is a single paragraph:
- (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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
Removal of cast photos
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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages content adequately teach readers about TV shows without the cast photos? George Ho (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Re: Euro Shopper feautured line of products.jpg
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)
File:Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
Change UK
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)
- @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)
- 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)
Page blanking
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)
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)
Regarding Flickr image
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)
- 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)
- Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 12:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
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)
Disambiguation link notification for May 28
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)
Could you please be more careful...
| you wrote | notes |
|---|---|
| It is pretty clear, for example, that the subject didn't create the screenshot; |
|
| 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. |
|
| There is no support for the claim that the image is particularly violent. |
|
| (it's not even made in the article, and only implied in the use rationale) |
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
- Ferret, I've crossed paths with Hullaballoo multiple times, over multiple years. My conclusions are:
- Hullaballoo is genuinely well-intentioned, is genuinely convinced that his or her edits will improve the wikipedia;
- 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.
- I believe Hullaballoo is genuinely unaware of how abrasive they can be.
- 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)
You have been mentioned in an ANI thread
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Geo_Swan harassing User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. Ivanvector (/Edits) 15:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Natlalya Murashkevich
Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Misplaced Pages 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)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Sp00n exe. Each Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's policy on non-free content use it, but English Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
FYI
Hello HW. I wanted to let you know that your post at Misplaced Pages: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)
Bernie Dresel image
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 Misplaced Pages (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)
- 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. Misplaced Pages-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)
Objection
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)
- 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)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hoyt
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
File:The Unknown Comic.jpg
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
Gossip related.
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/Camila_Cabello EditorsHelp101 (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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)
Amanda Cerny
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)
Photo of Earl Chudoff
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 Misplaced Pages article, and is listed as being from the Pennsylvania Legislature and being "fair use": https://en.wikipedia.org/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)
- 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)
Scott Williams (artist)
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/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)
- 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)
Mark Pritchard
Mark Pritchard
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)
- 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)
AAGPBL photos
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)
- 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)
- 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)
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
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)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | 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 Misplaced Pages 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 |
Season's Greetings
.jpg)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy holidays
Oh! The indignities some of us have to suffer during the festive season ......... happy XMAS Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 
Coolabahapple (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Good luck
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはHullaballoo Wolfowitzたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
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)
Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg
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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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)
Nonfree image in BLP info box
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)
CGP Grey stick figure.png
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)
- (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)
- @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)
- @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 Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#NFCC#1 exemptions for BLP privacy reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
- @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)
Astral Dreadnought
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)
Nomination for merging of Template:Playboy Playmates by year
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)
Nomination for merging of Template:Playboy Playmates by year
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)
Your signature 2
I believe your signature is breaking the WP:NOTADVOCACY rule of Misplaced Pages. I think your signature is political in nature. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
- "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- This can be extended to signatures too, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:10, 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)
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 18:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 19:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)- (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)
- (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
- 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,
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Suit yourself. Let's take this to ANI. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's_signature --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
May 2020
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- 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. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Houston (actor) and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
Andrea Elson headshot
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)
- 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)
File:Captain Tom Moore fundraising walk.jpg
Hi HW. I understand why you removed this file, but it was discussed at Misplaced Pages: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)
Apology
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 17:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Killjoy
No content
"no current source"
Can you wikilink me to the Misplaced Pages 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)
ANI Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
ANI
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)
Orphaned non-free image File:Asger Aaboe.jpg
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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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)
- 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)
""A. R. Long"" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "A. R. Long". The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages: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)
A reminder
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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Delaney. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- 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)
Hello
Because of your comment at Misplaced Pages: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 22:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Deletion template at Gabbie Carter
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)
Pokemon in India delection request
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
Photo deletion at Barbara Niven
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)
- (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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages accepts. You can find out a little more about this at c:Commons:Licensing, but basically Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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)
- 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)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| 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 Misplaced Pages 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 |
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries. // Timothy :: talk 13:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Colin Keiver Misplaced Pages Page
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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- Before you embarrass yourself any further, you badly need to learn the basics of Misplaced Pages'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, Misplaced Pages-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)
- (talk page watcher) Hi Johny3936. Just going to pipe in and say that both Hullaballoo Wolfwitz and Only in death are correct about how Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)
I am beginning to get tired of these confrontational Misplaced Pages moderators like Hullaballoo who make edits without even explaining what they did. If we’re playing by the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages’s policies before I “embarrass” myself “even further”. Isn’t that mature there. Well, the thing is that you work on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Johny3936 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Carlos Petroni
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)
- 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 you!
_by_Ron.jpg)
A kitten for all the great work you do Hullaballoo Wolfowitz!
Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
NFCC violations?
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages policies. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
Viper (rapper) image.
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)
- Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages: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)
- 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)
- Had a chat with Whpq about this (on my talk page). Currently making Viper himself fill out a Misplaced Pages: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)
Lee Wagstaff
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)
- 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)
Road of Memory G12
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 17:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Wug·a·po·des 04:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Three years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Gurbaksh Chahal and Rubina Bajwa
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:
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)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.203.224.135 (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Archival
I have archived your talk page and removed all pre-2016 comments. Feel free to revert me. --🐔 Chicdat 12:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Marchjuly: That's fine. I'll wait until August 22. 🐔 Chicdat 12:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 10:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Marchjuly: That's fine. I'll wait until August 22. 🐔 Chicdat 12:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Jar Jar Binks Must Die.jpg
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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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)
- Ignore this. Fixed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Welcome back
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)
A kitten for you!
Wolfie is back, Hooray!
Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
No current summary
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Re: Lee Sun-bin
@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)
- 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)
Your signature (2)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
September 2021
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.
Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.
Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old interaction ban, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other logged community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After a community review of this block there is no consensus to reverse or alter it. HighInBC 12:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Comment to reviewing admin. Not that my opinion matters much, but as a participant in the AFD I was a bit surprised that the comments made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette were taken as a serious personal attack infraction; as the nominator at this particular AFD (Boleyn) has been nominating large amounts of articles for deletion very rapidly recently in succession. These nominations have been so close together that a competent BEFORE search could not have been done in between nominations. I do believe the concerns raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz were justified under the circumstances. That said, Hullaballoo could have been kinder and calmer in the way those issues were presented. I am not familiar with the history behind this case, but I would argue that it's not clear that a blockable infraction was made in this instance. (at least not one deserving of such a long ban) 4meter4 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- I very seldom ever express views on unblock requests, however, despite having some vague understanding of the civility issues that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a party to over time, I do take some sympathy on this occasion. If you take any pre-existing bias out and consider if another editor had made the same or similar comments, I would not think an instant block would be the result, or indeed any kind of block. I appreciate when there is a history of incivility then there is considerably less assumption of good faith, however in this instance I don't think HW's comments were excessively incivil. Borderline, yes, brusque, very much so and the general tone was eyebrow-raising. Looking at the underlying view expressed, the statements made by HW are not too unreasonable. The worst personal statement I see is to "trout the nominator harshly" - if this is the worst of HW's statement, then maybe it's a sign of progress. Bungle 19:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Blocking admin comment: On 22 February 2021, Wugapodes blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for six months "per consensus at ANI, violation of civility-related editing restriction". This block and the ANI closure that led to it was uncontested, which establishes that a civility restriction was and is in fact in force, as described in the ANI closure.
About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Misplaced Pages yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" (), and of "sloth" (). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs.
In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Misplaced Pages's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct. Sandstein 19:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- In context, the "institutional misogyny" highlighted seems more in reference to the nomination than a direct personal attack, although still inappropriate. I am not an advocate of HW in the slightest, particularly as there certainly remains issues with general civility and the apparent inability to make a statement without drawing some personal critique. Maybe HW should reflect on the general tone of the statement and consider how it could have been alternately expressed without the phrases of concern that Sandstein took issue with. Bungle 20:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: I'd like to respectfully disagree with this block. I have two main concerns. First, I'm not convinced that the comments were particularly vexatious. I find this essay helpful for weighing civility blocks, and I'm not sure the conduct at issue falls below the standard laid out there. Second, I'm worried about the timeliness of the block. The comment was made two weeks ago, and in that time the comment didn't seem to cause any stir. Unless there's some incident since then which I'm unaware of, I don't really see what is being prevented. Given the minimal disruption it caused, a block seems more like an escalation than a resolution. Given my close and previous block, I obviously agree with you about the interpretation of the logged restriction, but I would like to think that raising your concerns on this talk page before blocking would have led to a better outcome. I'd like to ask you to reconsider and hopefully come to the conclusion to unblock, but I'll leave it to another admin to evaluate if you still object as I'm not a fan of unilaterally overturning civility blocks. — Wug·a·po·des 00:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, thanks for your feedback, but I see things differently. In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Misplaced Pages. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Misplaced Pages process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct. In this particular case, what the block prevents is similar misconduct by this user for six months. As their reaction here shows, they do not recognize the problem with their conduct. This indicates that "raising my concerns on this talk page", as you suggest, would not have changed the user's conduct. I remain of the view that the block is an appropriate preventative measure. Sandstein 06:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Somebody surely needs to be trouted here but I won’t suggest whom lest it be interpreted as a personal attack...—Aquegg (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, thanks for your feedback, but I see things differently. In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Misplaced Pages. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Misplaced Pages process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct. In this particular case, what the block prevents is similar misconduct by this user for six months. As their reaction here shows, they do not recognize the problem with their conduct. This indicates that "raising my concerns on this talk page", as you suggest, would not have changed the user's conduct. I remain of the view that the block is an appropriate preventative measure. Sandstein 06:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I feel obliged to comment here, primarily because my !vote at the AFD in question was "per related commentary above from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and I specifically endorsed trouting the nominator. Those of us who spend a lot of time at AFD have been constantly frustrated by the "efforts" of one particular editor who is blindly nominating articles for deletion in rapid succession simply because they have been tagged as being of questionable notability for years. It's clear that the majority of these nominations have been done without any reference to WP:BEFORE and not once have I seen the nominator defend their nominations or offer some additional commentary as to why the nomination was made. Many of them have been speedily kept or WP:SNOW closed. Its also clear that there is no appetite among the admin corps for dealing with this particular editor and these particular nominations. Okay, fine, but the result is increasingly frustrated AFD participants. We're here because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless of course your contribution is the target of a lazy, drive-by (against-policy) deletion nomination and there isn't someone like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz around to push back against that sort of nonsense. Sorry, but this is a bad block. St★lwart 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that the block was implemented 2 weeks after the comment was made, without prompting from the editor against whom the comment was made, in a discussion where other editors actually endorsed the comment in question (including, in part, an admin), makes it all the stranger. St★lwart 15:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm looking at this and thinking about my opinion on it in general, but if the block is based on conduct on AfD's could it not have been limited to the Misplaced Pages namespace? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 331dot, in my view not. Incivility is an issue of personal character and temperament that is not limited to any particular namespace. There's no reason to believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be more civil in, say, article talk page discussions than in AfDs, especially because in their unblock request above they do not even recognize that their conduct is problematic at all. What's more, the previous six-month block also extended to all namespaces; it would not be in keeping with our practice of escalating blocks to limit the scope of a block for recidivism. Sandstein 10:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- From what I've seen about this matter, I think I am in agreement with Bungle and Wugapodes above. Maybe it's a judgement call, but I don't think that the comments crossed the line. Like Wugapodes, I'm not going to unilaterally lift this block. There also seems to be concerns with whether a formal sanction exists at all. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Sandstein: from the above comments it is clear that this action lacks consensus. Anyone can of course try to gain consensus for such a block or other sanction at the appropriate forum but I suggest that the block should be removed until such time as that might occur.—Aquegg (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Entirely up to you, HW. But, would you consider shortening your signed name, per WP:SEAOFBLUE & maybe get an Archive Bot for your talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- "There's a strain of institutional misogyny underlying this nomination" is a personal attack warranting a long block? Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
AN/I
I have started a thread at WP:ANI that involves you. It can be found here. Hopefully someone will copy over anything you wish to post. If I see it, I will do so. — Ched (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- This is to note that the ANI discussion was closed by HighInBC as follows: "While controversial this block falls well within the discretion of an administrative action and is based on prior behavior and sanctions. In addition while there is significant opposition to the block there is a majority that supports the block. This discussion has been going on for more than 48 hours and as time passes is moving more towards supporting the block. There is not a consensus that the block was incorrect and it is not likely that one will form. As far as the community discussion goes the block stands. The remaining unblock avenues remain open." Sandstein 09:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Sandstein for posting this here, and apologies to Hullaballoo for forgetting to inform you of the result myself. HighInBC 12:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:DEStevenson.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DEStevenson.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Greetings
.jpg)
Gpkp has given you vanilla ice cream! Vanilla ice cream promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better.
Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings! Hope u r seeing this message...
have a nice day!
Many thanks for your valuable suggestions on image files...
--Gpkp 08:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Hannesbok.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hannesbok.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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. ―Susmuffin 21:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
File:Ship of Ishtar.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ship of Ishtar.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Angela Raymond for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angela Raymond is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Angela Raymond until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Bgsu98 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg){kind=link}
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) 17:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Orphaned non-free image File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Edenborn (Nick Sagan novel - front cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 17:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Charles Dexter Ward.jpg
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 Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Mission: Interplanetary
The article Mission: Interplanetary has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not notable. Most of the current sources are primary or not independent. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Curtis Books
Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Curtis Books, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Johnwcampbell1965.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Johnwcampbell1965.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 17:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:High place cabell.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:High place cabell.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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) 17:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Categories: