User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 07

Summer Cummings

Hello. I see you replaced the G4 tag. The thing is back at AFD, so why was it improper to remove the G4 tag? An argument could be made that it's "not substantially identical to the deleted version." Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 00:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If somebody actually made that argument, preferably with a brief explanation, I wouldn't have replaced the tag. Most of the time I think it's generally OK to remove a speedy, but I think if you're going to pull a repost or copyvio tag, you need to explain. See my comments to the user who removed the tag, saying only the article was "legit".[1] My recollection is that the deleted version had a bit more information, and stronger claims to notability, than the current one; the archive.org copy also suggests that. Basically, I think that, absent an explanation, the tag shouldn't be removed without being checked by an admin. The explanation doesn't have to be a big deal, just saying "I don't think this claim was in the original article" would usually be good enough. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, the deleted version is probably stronger, and the TV appearances not as notable as could be hoped for. Where might one find the relevant policy/guideline, particularly re: DRV?173.171.149.206 (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Not helping

This edit revert was counterproductive. 107.4.30.154 (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

That all happened while I was asleep. By the way, your contributions at Santorum are, in my opinion, the clearest and most insightful. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on dashes

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your helpful addition of secondary source material to the article Slaves of Sleep. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Ballantine268.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ballantine268.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Amy Grant's page

Hello. Reverting each other's edits over and over isn't something I would love to do, but the "practice" does show that if artists have their own discography pages, it's enough to only list their studio albums in the pages and use {{main}} template. Amy Grant released dozens of albums and over 70 singles, yet it's not necessary to list all of them. You can see it by checking discography sections in these articles: WP:FA#Music_biographies. I will be sure to create the List of awards and nominations received by Amy Grant page to reduce the amount of information that consists of lists. And I highly recommend to use explanations in edit summary line to avoid misunderstandings. --Cannot (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

User: Pinkmermaid - Page: Regina Russell

I noticed some of the editing history on the page for Regina Russell and the following paragraph is all unsourced: "She also does hosting, and fashion and style segments as a celebrity style expert.[5] [6] She closed her store but continued to raid celebrity closets and auction clothing for charity on various TV shows." I do not see any recent press on the sourced link showing that she currently does hosting and style segments or anything showing she currently "raids celebrity closets and auctions clothing for charity on various TV shows". The last press item is dated August 2007, which means she previously did hosting and segments. User: Pinkmermaid is the subject editing her own page, removing nessesary calls for refs. This is all self sourced and self promotion, without any outside input at all. Your edits were justified and the user reverted them back to her edits once again. Also the Official Website listed takes me to the MySpace page of Regina Russell. Is MySpace considered as someone's official website? It should be referenced as her MySpace page not as an official Website. The page is protected so I can't make any edits. --Writeitup (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see on the page for Regina Russell that user:Pinkmermaid removed your edit stating she is billed in the movie Hook. According to IMDB her "role" was as "Mermaid" and NOT "Red Headed Mermaid". That "role" is not first billed, it is a 6 second scene that is EXTRA work and not a "billed role" as user:Pinkmermaid is saying it is. This is the entire scene and it isn't even notable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrYYqYfEhPo --Writeitup (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, this person above is the very same person that has been vandalizing my page in the feud you mentioned. The person doesn't even know what "billing" and "first billed" even means. First billing means the ONE actor who is listed first in a films credits. i.e Tom Cruise in Top Gun. No on uses the term "unbilled". The industry standard term is "uncredited" which means the actors name is not listed in the credits. The scene is a minute and a half and what difference does it make? My name is in the credits. I am credited in that and Hollywood Homicide. The user above is just trying to harass and get real editors to do her dirty work. I will source the TV appearances but how does one do so? It's on my IMDB is that good enough. I don't know any other listings of TV appearances.Pinkmermaid (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The two of you need to take your squabble off Wikipedia, permanently. Both of you have made inappropriate edits to each other's articles; both of you have used/abused multiples accounts/IPs. Your own articles, and others, have had to be semiprotected, there has been at least one SPI, and you two have caused multiple editors and administrators to waste too much time trying to sort these things out. I may yet ask for formal intervention.

Pinkmermaid, the editor now using the Writeitup account has not, so far as I can tell, acknowledged any real-world identification on Wikipedia. It's therefore generally a violation of the WP:OUTING policy to refer to her on-Wikipedia by any form of that name. Don't do it again, in discussion, in article text, or in edit summaries.

As for the term "unbilled," I use it in a way reflecting my long-ago work in the music business, it more or less lines up (as an opposite) with the way IMDB uses "first-billed" -- which quite clearly doesn't match the way you use it above. And IMDB is generally not acceptable as a source for claims that might likely be challenged; for convenience's sake, we tolerate its use as a source on more well-known credits, but not when the importance of a credit is disputed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Standage

Hey HW, as you seem to be quite familiar with these accounts, you might be interested in this SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Standage Cheers, Rob. Robman94 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've endorsed your comments, and added one more potential sock account. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Help with a persistant notability evasion

Hi HW, I need some help/advice... The Chris Webby page was deleted in January 2011 for lack of notability yet now it is in this user's profile... and is not being improved since it's creation on 31 January 2011 (around the original article's deletion). A prior speedy delete tag in Feb 2011 was erased because "he's known by millions" and was apparently not followed up for some reason. It is being linked by Myspace and other social media, so it's being used as an advertisement of sorts. (I googled ""Chris Webby" +Metzfolife", but I can vouch that [2] and [3] work.) There's another copy here too at User:Penn12/Chris_Webby and I'm not really sure what to do about this as it's not the sort of thing I usually deal with. Can you help? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, there's something odd going on here. I'm not sure just how to handle it -- it looks at first glance that somebody's using multiple accounts -- and I'll look into it further, shortly. Thanks. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to help out in whatever way I can. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metzfolife/Chris Webby was added to XXL (magazine) on the 15th by 205.200.234.204 & 184.100.67.229. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Metzfolife/Chris Webby was added to Sam Adams (musician) on the 16th by 67.4.153.84. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny - thanks for the laugh

Thanks for your change at Kristin Chenoweth. I laughed out loud when I saw your username. I don't know what it means, but it struck me as funny. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Kristin Kreuk

You edited the "Girls By Design" site out from the edit I made. Here is a YouTube link to her being associated with the site: search "Kristin Kreuk and Kendra Voth - ET Canada" on YouTube - she officially posted blogs on her site back in the day and I linked to it when adding her personal life and her saying she didn't eat meat, as well as the fact that the owns a dog named Dublin. It's on the replies section and is confirmed by the company's facebook/twitter pages. If you have any questions, please let me know if you intend on editing the page Marty2Hotty (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are not reliable, secondary sources as required by WP:RS and WP:BLP. Some of them are rather badly dated, "back in the day," as you put it. If matters are not covered in reliable sources, independent of the article subject, they typically lack encyclopedic significance, and are not appropriate to include in Wikipedia articles. Biographical articles should not be encumbered with information which lacks encyclopedic significance, and are not repositories for summaries of subjects' blog entries, twitter feeds, or other transient content. That some articles may not meet this standard at any given time is not justification for diluting others. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

- The thing is the "Girls by Design" part is actually on the wikipedia article and was part of the references. I just put the very same website as the External Links. It cannot be more reliable than the direct source of the biographical figures actual website, which Kristin is still a very much a part of. For this particular biographical figure, she is part of the site, as per the About, and I know people directly involved with her that confirms that as well. She still has her dog and doesn't eat meat anymore. I added additional links (BC Hydro) which are secondary sources confirming she lives in Vancouver and September 2010 picture of that BC Hydro article has her picture with her dog. Update: for Hill Zaini "I heard" music video. I found a link that directs to his Wikipedia page that shows Kristin Kreuk as starring in it. I linked it even though she is prominently in the music video on the YouTube link. That would settle most if not all the edits. Many references added. Please let me know if you have more questions Marty2Hotty (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:JBrunnerQS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JBrunnerQS.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Game On (music video)

Would you reconsider your decline of speedy deletion of Game On (music video). Your comments on declining it indicated that db-web could not be used on a song, however this article is about the music video and is focused on the video's presence on You Tube which makes it appropriate for db-web.--RadioFan (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. It's apparently sold/distributed through iTunes, for example. I don't think the limits of db-web are solidly established, but a creative work sold via iTunes clearly falls outside them. Maybe the article would be better moved to "Game On (song)", which might more accurately reflect the content, but that surely wouldn't justify speedy deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem

Hey, I see that you and a variety of others keep reverting my edits and are not giving a valid reason. "Defrag, "As before"? These do not tell me anything about what the full on problem is. Why do all of you have a problem with all my edits and don't tell me those reasons that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I really would like to understand this problem and see what we can do to solve it. Write me back as soon as you can. 173.61.170.148 (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You should recognize that when multiple experienced editors repeatedly revert your edits that you are out of step with Wikipedia practice. Chopping article sections up into one-sentence fragments and separating related texts with unrelated intervening sections is bad practice. Making dozens of edits a day without using any edit summaries is bad practice. Repeatedly reverting back to changes that other editors object to is bad practice. Plunging ahead and repeating this behavior is bad practice. Wikipedia runs on consensus and policy, and making changes, over and over, which have no basis in policy and run contrary to consensus and practice is not a good idea. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?!

Dude, cut it out!! Why are you reverting every edit I do?! You are not explaining this problem and I have not even made an attempt to talk to me or explain yourself!! Why do keep reverting my edits, huh? Saying "defrag" does not tell me one thing! I want to settle this issue but you want talk to me!! Since the beginning you have reverted my edits and I have had enough!! Talk to me so we can settle this issue. 173.61.170.148 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Go away. It's obviously false to say I'm reverting "every edit" you make, and saying I "have not even made an effort" to talk to you ignores what's plain as day in my reply, immediately above, to your previous post here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what "defrag" even means and I meant talk on "my" talk page. You have reverted all my edits, every second I make an edit you change it. I not saying I'm right, I'm saying you are are being a huge pain. Talk on MY talk page so I know you are writing to me and so we can settle this. 173.61.170.148 (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You don't have an individual talk page; you've been jumping IPs, and you have no business complaining that people answer your questions where you post them. I don't see any constructive intent here, just edit warring against multiple editors in order to degrade articles.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "IJethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I Jethrobot (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still Troy (Pastor Troy album)

I thought to bring this to your attention. I tagged the above referenced article as an A10, since removed by you, making an edit summary which states, "remove speedy, appears to be legit spinout". Since the article is an exact copy of the Still Troy article, I would like to invite you to revisit the removal of the A10, in lieu of escalating to another deletion process. Please let me know your thoughts on this matter. The desired response would be for you to consider replacing the A10. Personally, I'm thinking you may have been sleepwalking or something when you initially removed it. I kinda got a chuckle out of it. Cind.amuse 13:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Surrey Marshe

Why do you keep reverting my edit under the information reagrding Surrey Marshe ? Surrely Marshe real name is Solveig Mellomborgen, wich clearly is a Norwegian name. She was misslabelled by Playboy as being from aalborg, Denmark, but was really 100 % Norwegian. She was only a student in Aalborg, Denmark at the time of her discovery by Playboy. The ncorrect nationality of this person is that of one being from the country of Norway. In other worlds Norwegian. Not Danish from Denmark.

I have added a source in Norwegian:

http://pub.nettavisen.no/nettavisen/side3/article2981685.ece

This source in Englishwas not blocked by Wiki for some reason:

www.associatedcontent.com/article/245372/playboy_centerfolds_from_the_1960s_pg3.html?cat=38

Please do not revert again

Mortyman (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

Please see this edit of mine. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Helena Christensen 2

Labelling something "unencyclopedic" doesn't make it so. Her publicly, and multiply documented and sourced statements are decidedly "encyclopedic." I'm reverting your "agree" deletion as inadequately explained and undiscussed, and out of step with long-standing agreement by many, many other editors. That someone (perhaps) canvassed you for help does nothing to support your position. I won't be silent in the face of deletion of sourced content. Discuss in Talk:Helena Christensen. --Lexein (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No. "She is a cheese lover," or whatever variation of this nonsense currently infests the article, isn't encyclopedic, and now that another editor has noticed you shouldn't unilaterally keep reinstating it. Absent a reasonable response at the article talk page, I see this as nothing but vapid edit warring. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No. She stated she is a cheese lover, and the rather diverse sources (in both type and time period) support the claim. It's completely appropriate to resist removal of reliably sourced material, even if you and some other drive-by deletionist don't like it. --Lexein (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This debate has taken place, over different parts of the article, on at least one prior occasion; no other editor has ever supported your position. It is completely inappropriate to edit war, and to make insinuations about editors who disagree with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium of celebrity trivia, sourced or unsourced. Repeatedly inserting disputed content by a single editor, over the objections of multiple editors, is edit warring. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the previous debate took place with you. No other editors were involved, and there is no need for any other editor to "support my position" since my position was then, and is now, sound. Re-deletion following commencement of discussion was the actual edit warring. But don't take my word for it, I hope other editors will remind you of this. I "inserted" nothing, for the simple reason that reversion of an unjustified deletion of long-standing, well-sourced, and undisputed content (by any _other_ editors), and reversion of a deletion made after discussion commenced, cannot fairly be labeled "insertion". The subject of the article made these claims about herself, on multiple occasions, to multiple sources. Not much debate about that. --Lexein (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's quite clear that in the prior dispute I was not the only editor opposing your position [4]. Weird semantics are no substitute for policy and guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

3RRN

Good. I look forward to some attention by independent editors, some of whom might be inclusionists, and some of whom might be deletionists. I look forward to their correction of your misunderstanding of 3RR, and your false characterization of "insert", "all" and inappropriate claim of "dubious noteworthiness." Do stop falsely characterizing my legitimate actions as editor against unjustified deletionism. I've done no "insertions", only reverting repeated deletions, which continued after discussion was begun. Your use of "all" exaggerates the number of editors actually discussing - it's two: you and I. The other seems to have bowed out. My edit history will stand up to any scrutiny you may wish to bring. Cheers. --Lexein (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Krista page

My sister knew her in school in NY. Why did you remove the reference to her real name?!?!? Put it back on the page.

No. Read WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:V. What your sister tells you is not acceptable as a Wikipedia source. Also read [WP:3RR]] if you're thinking about putting this unsourced stuff back in again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Amber Benson

Hi, Hullaballoo. Can you explain to me how the length of the video clip is a relevant criterion, or the fact that it's two years old? Since when are sources deemed invalid for either of these reasons?

Also, can you explain to me how the material constitutes "gossip", given that Benson herself is the one who mentions that she was dating Busch, and did so without any prompting from her interviewers, as it was something she mentioned in passing while answering an unrelated question about her work on Drones? Since Busch directed Drones with her, the fact that she mentions him as "my boyfriend" is rather understandable, and hardly "gossip".

If you are not convinced by my arguments, we can move this discussion to the article talk page, and invite others. Let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin, rap star

Hi, with respect to this edit: Actually, I think User:SupremeCommander85 was referring to this. Nonetheless, I agree with your undo. It's worth a mention in the article (and so it is, under "Retirement"), but it's not lede-worthy. Aldrin is not known for this one incident, and it is WP:UNDUE to include it there. I do like your edit summary, though. TJRC (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Buh!

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you want to delete everything about sex. That´s so obvious. So your pseudo-talk is just trash. Can you explain how your mother got pregnant, please? Oh she was pollinated by the air...interesting. --178.25.2.105 (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Country singers images

I think it might be better to wait for a consensus before removing the images. (That is, a third opinion other than Dekkappai's tl;dr filibuster that does little but insult a whole genre with wildly inaccurate stereotypes.) I know you always have the best interests of Wikipedia policy in mind, but I honestly think that at the very least, James Bonamy and Nitty Gritty Dirt Band are exceptions that should be further analyzed by the community first. No two NFCC cases are exactly alike, after all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Also, I would think that the Blackhawk image is fine. Shenandoah (band) went to GA with a non-free image of a previous lineup. (And I would think that one of the guys in the Blackhawk picture being dead would be reason alone to justify its use.) Again, I think this one should be discussed more before removal. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• He's doing it so persistently that I think something should be done to put a stop to it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

"Delete all the country music articles except for Johnny Cash and Burl Ives". Yeah, I was obviously deadly serious there. Anyway, with all the weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and laying-on of wreaths on the grave of another editor's slain ego over my obviously Andy Kaufmanesque rant, one minor thing is being overlooked: It was meant to needle you. I don't even know the other guy ferchrissakes! (He works on country articles? I thought you did.) So why don't you pick out yourself nice little a barnstar and affix my name to it? The "I ducked the coconut cream pie and the guy behind me got it in his face" barnstar or something. Wouldn't it be great if this thing gets me banned? All the BS I've slung at you, and some guy gets his feathers ruffled over an obvious joke that wasn't even directed at him. Yep, that would wrap up my career here in a perfect little bow. Have a nice day. Dekkappai (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fizz off, you old flipper. You were just ripping off Chuck D. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, any more talk like that, me & some of my opera buds'll come over & raise hell! (And I have no idea who Chuck D is, so he stole from me. The fizzin' flipper.) Dekkappai (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You really want to resort to threatening to block me?

This is a dynamic IP old man. As soon as you block this IP, I'm jumping to a new one. You'll just screw another user who adopts this IP address at some later point, I have 255^4 possible numbers to use. Good luck winning this battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.192.243 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I'm using Huggle and tried to tag Political candidates and elected officials opinions on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories for speedy deletion just as it was changed to a redirect. So sorry about the mistake, I was about to undo it, thanks for taking care of it for me. -Vcelloho (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Klineoa-portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Klineoa-portrait.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dian Parkinson

Why did you edit the Dian Parkinson bio as of 7/15/11 ? You work in a school library and you have time to edit articles,what kind of job do you have? The information was correct idiot! To be honest you seem to me your the type of person I woudnt trust around kids your editing articles on a sex symbol who appeared nude in Playboy and appeared in a Playboy soft porn video during school hours and you have a history of it,why? is it because you have a perverted crush on her like a teenager ?, I cant believe it! Your a frequent contributor to Wiki and your worried about Dian Parkinson's reputation who really are you wierdo ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.194.76 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear a bit confused about identities. Based on the IP for your edits to the article, you were editing from the New York City public school system's network. Therefore, you should have posted on this on your own talk page and left me out of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Axel Braun

Hey Hullaballoo--will you consider leaving a message on the editor's talk page, explaining why their edits don't pass muster? Some editors don't read edit summaries very often, and it would help if edit-warring and other disruption ensues. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell merger

I realize this is a little ironic to ask, but do you have any objections to me following WP:BOLD and merging unsourced books from the series into the main page? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objections; I nearly did it myself. If I remember correctly, some of the later anthology articles don't have contents information in them, which you can find at [www.isfdb.org ISFDB]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done and done (phew, my hands are tired). The page unfortunately did not provide additional content information for the books that were missing. I did not move all the books, just the ones that were missing references or whose references were poor at supporting notability. You are welcome to help clean up the page a bit. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Courcelles's talk page.
Message added 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courcelles 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Marcus Bachmann

Hi. I notice you are quite experienced with BLP's. I know you already voted on the AfD for Marcus, but would you mind commenting over at Talk:Marcus Bachmann#BLP concerns and sharing your wisdom? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Generally speaking, it's best not to request Revision Delete of content like that in open forums, such as talk pages. I've forwarded the issue along to the oversight team, though I'm not sure it's necessary. Thanks! – GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Axel Braun

While I applaud your perseverance, I am quite saddened by your lack of anything better to do with your life.Please stop vandalizing the Axel Braun page. The awards that you keep deleting are ALL legitimate, documented and very important to the Adult film community, of which obviously you don't know much. Axel Braun is a prominent Adult producer and director, and your constant vandalism is inexplicable.

Hello Cousin!

Hi Hullaballoo!

Nice to see another "Wolfowitz"!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Hi Hullaballoo, This is Patrick Reynolds, the anti-smoking advocate and former actor. I wanted to thank you for your kind advice on the Discussion page of my bio at Wikipedia, and to let you know that I have indeed been editing it. I wanted to make it more accurate, add in some little known facts about my life, and correct the few errors in the earlier version there. You're right that I am not skilled at doing things the way Wikipedia likes best; but I will take your advice and stop making edits and adding outside links to the page. My intention was just to make more info available to anyone who may want it. I dont have time to learn how to edit the page in the preferred manner, nor do I have the funds to pay someone to help me do that. I am done making changes now, and hope it will remain pretty much as it is. It seems odd to me that they classify me as an Actor, when I am a former actor. These days I am an advocate, motivational speaker, and author. If you are able to reclassify me under any of those instead of Actor, that would be wonderuful, and make the page more accurate. Further, if there are changes you know how to make to my bio there to help to get it out of the "Stub" Bio class, that would be wonderful. It's really a first class account of my whole life at this point, and some of the links and info in it are not available anywhere else. I'd be pleased to talk to you, if you wish to contact me. Thanks and all the best to you, Patrick Reynolds 2Patrick2 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Caprice Bourret

Ugh, this COI editor! Would you like to chime in on the recent edits?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 14:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The never-ending struggle. I've hacked out a pile of promotional stuff that I think goes back to that editor, mostly stuff sourced to the subject's own website, and added some citation tags. If I've used my machete on anything you thing was worthwhile, feel free to add it back (except the copyvio refs, of course). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I was really hoping to put back those copyvios. :P  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freddie_Mercury&diff=441598984&oldid=441412408 ..two editors removed this (you being one and stating it was promotional/approaching the spamline, and another stating the link was unreviewed). It doesn't look in any way notable for inclusion. The person who inserted it created the link, a minor play that contains nothing about Mercury and no Queen material (just some imaginary afterlife). Freddie Mercury impersonators who play at rock concerts looks more notable than this does.MusoForde (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for taking those AFDs to ANI. Appreciate the support very much. Spartaz Humbug! 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks for your prompt and very effective action. It's good to know that somebody has my back. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the Standage IPs is back in action

Just FYI, 68.167.21.82 has come back to life and it's still acting like a troll/vandal. You even get a name check in this edit. This edit shows the user's true intentions. Robman94 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

I've responded to your post at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Redlinking_to_personal_names after the paragraph you wrote became the justification for a tendentious edit war at Western Australian state election, 1933. If you could review the situation I would be most grateful. Orderinchaos 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Norma Stitz vandal

Okay, they've been well warned IMO. If they readd the information again today (which I suspect they will) report them to AIV for blocking. I'm giving you a heads-up as you're more active than I am these days and are more likely to encounter the change first. Tabercil (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, You edited Some of my comments on Kate Lawlers page a couple of months ago. I wasn't sure why, as they were all factually correct, I left a comment in Discussions, but you haven't noticed. Kate has recetly posted on her kerrang wall that her show is the biggest rated show on Kerrang, I would have edited that in, but I fear you'd just edit it out. [edit] Lawlers Djing career

kate's clubbing career has been going on for some years now, I thought I would mention it. I didn't really think it was contentious, so didn't add sources. Here are some:

http://www.toolroomrecords.co.uk/artists/kate-lawler http://www.framed-records.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/essentialmix/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20080705 http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/213/31809958.jpg http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/exclusive-interview-kate-lawler-interview-on-radio/fqFtsTolW6WY9hPhhtjP2g

Also her show at Kerrang does start at 15.00 hours nowadays, just check the radio-listings.

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong it's my first attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.64.168 (talk)

Replied at article talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (16,032 bytes) (→Reception: It did not. It included it in an apparently comprehensive list of shared-world anthology series that weren't spun off from media/gaming properties) (undo)

Heroes in Hell discussion - If you read the paragraph, it starts off with the most famous SCI FI shared worlds (Star Trek and Dr. Who - suspect since no mention of Star Wars and many other SF SWs), then lists the most famous Horror - Lovecraft Cthulhu Mythos, then lists 14 Fantasy SWs. The next paragraph mentions 1 gaming SW - Dragonlance. The list of 14 is not comprehensive, it is a judgement from a reputable source on famous SW in the Fantasy genre since it is an encyclopedia about FANTASY. I take offense at the insinuation I am a liar - I was merely trying to establish notability by the company the work keeps from a reputable source. I have restated the sentence to re-assert this fact hopefully more to your liking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.161.68 (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk: Heroes in Hell.
Message added 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 14:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Proposals for dealing with Gilgamesh's talk page.
Message added 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Help for the newbs..

WP:Schmidt's Primer (shortcut WP:MQSP) Whatcha think before I go live? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell insanity

I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't mean to slight your efforts and, in my opinion, extensive research into this matter through my proposals. I just wanted to reach a consensus on this before it got out of hand. Some editors have mentioned that it might be possible to provide the actual contract via scans. Would you be receptive to reconsidering your position depending on what rights were written on there? Honestly, I do not think it is important to explain the difference between first serial and reprint in this case when the differences do not seem substantial. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've given this some thought. I highly doubt we are going to arrive at a consensus on the discussion page, and I presume the page will be the subject of edit warring in the future between you and other editors. So, I've opened up a dispute resolution page. Maybe there we can clear this up. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Reemergence of the Gilgamesh Non-Consensus

Gee, I thought this issue was settled. I find it fascinating that since Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote history on August 22 on Gilgamesh in the Outback, everyone still thinks this is about the "when was it published where" issue. THAT issue was brought to consensus about 2 weeks ago. As far as I knew, the issue was closed. Since, as Mr. Wolfowitz claims, in his view, the consensus reached was "not a compromise, that's a capitulation. It is not acceptable to me..." he decided to rewrite the entire page to make it say what he wanted from the beginning, in spite of the consensus reached. When challenged by information in his own source, Wolfowitz' only defense is to accuse me of making "personal attacks" - I guess by quoting paragraphs from an interview he cited; how that is attacking, I really don't know; followed by a vague explanation that (regardless of fact) Wikipedia's policies and encyclopedic principles won't allow for the information to be presented. I'm sorry, but no matter what Mr. Wolfowitz wishes, reality and history remain unchanged, despite his strenuous attempts to alter it; he simply damages the accuracy and credibility of WP. The repeated charges of "personal and insulting attacks" from Mr. Wolfowitz is the first actual case of "projection" I have ever run into.

I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs)

Sarah Young

So I gather Sarah Young was deleted because a similar article was deleted long ago? I thought it was both notable, and sourced, but I guess because of its history here, I need to go through the additional stuff at WP:DRV?

That part aside, I don't think it should redirect to Cloud Cult; there are at least three Sarah Young's more notable than her. Also, shouldn't what links here been checked first? I don't think any of them are related to Cloud Cult. --Juventas (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Sarah Young wan't deleted. It was reverted back to the state it was in before you replaced its content with a re-edited version of the text of a deleted article being worked on in userspace. The Sarah Louise Young DAB page you created was deleted because it failed basic rules concerning DAB pages; it did not distinguish between two or more existing articles. The "What Links Here" page you cite does not involve the deleted DAB page, but to the surviving article; the "What Links Here" page for the deleted page shows no article space links or other links requiring action. Please take more care when editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saddened you would rather retort behind semantics, than help an aspiring editor. We both know Sarah Young was reverted to a redirect. At no point did I mention Sarah Louise Young or a DAB page. If you actually looked at the link I provided, you would see Sidcup, List of British pornographic actors, and Café de Paris (London) are linking Sarah Young which now redirects to Cloud Cult. None of those articles are intending to reference Cloud Cult. As for my questions you didn't answer, I'll look elsewhere for help. --Juventas (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with creating those links, or with the article involved. All I did was to undo your substitution of the text of a deleted article for the content of an existing page regarding a different person. If you've got a list of badlinks, just delink the articles. You don't need anybody's help or permission to do that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hell and insanity

You are welcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Janet Morris

I'd like you to read the post that Ms Morris just made to my talk page. This is not an invitation to have a dispute with her there; rather, it is an invitation to look at what she says when she does not feel (rightly or otherwise) that she is being persecuted.

Leaving aside her comment about you 'having an agenda', which is a statement I will ask her to retract, I feel that you and she have the common goal of improving Wikipedia's information about the HoH series. As such, you should be able to cooperate. Okay? DS (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI It's nice you have so much time on your hands, but please leave wikipedia. We don't need damn fools editing here. Your net contribution is far too negative. The BALLS you have (!) wasting tens, perhaps hundreds of people's time over a minor technical dispute. HAVE YOU NO SHAME??? When in doubt, remember WP:IAR, which far too many editors don't understand! If you're arguing... you're acting wrong. GROW UP. // FrankB 15:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm always impressed by people who try to demonstrate their greater maturity by posting uncivil, derogatory personal comments in CAPITAL LETTERS. You can be sure I'll give your advice the weight it deserves. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Thank you for the heads up. I would have missed it if you hadn't mentioned it to me. Cordova829 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Just wanted to give you fair warning that you are teetering very close to violating WP:3RR on Heroes in Hell. I know this discussion is long and plodding, but getting yourself blocked over this publication debacle is not really worth it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been quite careful about 3RR throughout these long discussions. However, I do think that the IP-hopper here is clearly acting in bad faith, and that his/her claiming I've somehow "modified" Google Books scans and US Copyright Office online records is a signal of vandalism rather than legitimate editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible sock

Did you notice the similarity between these edits?: [5], [6], and the fact that those statements are tied to yet another IP's contributions? I've opened up an SPI. This is too much. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jared Leto

On the talk page there's nothing about this version. The sources I used are reliable and the material is encyclopedic (per WP:BLP). You are currently removing sourced material without reason. I think you should see featured articles as Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt to understand that you're doing vandalism (and also an edit war).--Earthh (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There were three editors supporting removal of the material, two of whom made their opinions of it quite clear on the talk page. When you're alone in wanting in it in, you need to get consensus to add it back (absent a clear and important policy argument); just insisting on your newest bottle for the same lousy old wine won't cut it, nor will pointing out other articles that could be improved by similar deletions of subpar content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Status update/storm

Due to the anticipated imminent arrival of Hurricane Irene, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted once this morning (Saturday), and both my area and the area where my ISP operates are expected to be subject to power outages later today, possibly extended outages. So I'm quite likely not to be editing for a while, even after I finish off storm preparations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Harmonia1 AN/I thread hatted

I've {{hat}}ted the AN/I thread. I don't see anything else useful coming from it, given that Hulcys appears to be soapboxing. I've also left her a message that her attacks against you are not acceptable, and she will stop making them.

I do, however, want to respond briefly to your comment about the proposed compromise being unacceptable. I'm going to try not to lecture, because that'd be a dick thing to do to someone who knows this as well as I do. There are some things worth being stubborn about here, but this isn't one of them. It's just not a big deal. So, regardless of whether or not you like consensus, which you seem to be the only person against, please just drop it and move on. Regardless, I am going to wash my hands of the content issue. Cheers, and have a great weekend away from Wikipedia, even if it is because of a hurricane. lifebaka++ 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Guarddog2

I hope you survived the storm okay. Whenever you come back, Guarddog2 has posted some extensive comments on her userpage to which I've responded (see User talk: Guarddog2#Clarification as requested by Qwyrxian). I, Jethrobot also commented to me about those points on my talk page (see User talk:Qwyrxian#Guarddog2. It is my opinion that, while her story is not a definitive answer, it is, at least, believable. As such, I don't believe we have enough evidence to firmly block her as a duck of Harmonia1.

Also, as I mentioned in both places, I never actually looked at the pages in question or the DRN associated with HIH. I don't have too much time to do so now, but if there is something specific that you believe I can assist on, I will try to do so. As you'll see, one thing I said to Guarddog2 is that even though I think that there is insufficient connection to the prior Janet Morris case to justify action on that end, the general atmosphere, which may indicate off-wiki collusion, may still be enough of a problem to warrant further action. So let me know if there's something you'd like help monitoring, or discussing, or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Mandingo_(person)

"By longstanding and unmistakeable consensus, IAFD is not an acceptable source for such content in a BLP"

Link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanuckMike (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

From RSN, for example [7] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The example you have provided is a question from one editor and a response, in personal opinion form, from another. That's not concensus by any stretch or twist. In fact, the opposite was proffered: User:Tabercil felt that the site was a valid source for some material. Are there any other policy/guideline/concensus/noticeboard links that you can provide to show this "longstanding and unmistakeable consensus"? CanuckMike (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was just a hair away from reverting this addition as well. The site's reliability is dubious at best. ThemFromSpace 16:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for joining. Can you please explain (or link to) why you feel the site's reliability is dubious at best? CanuckMike (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking over this site, I see no information on who compiles the material or what sources are used to compile it. I also don't think it has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that our reliable sources should have. If you want further discussion you could ask at the reliable sources noticeboard to try and establish a consensus. ThemFromSpace 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity journalism

Thanks for you comment on BLP Notice page. I thoroughly agree with your sentiments. What can we do to improve the celebrity BLP's overall? Are to forums where these types of issues are being discussed. I would like to actively participate. --BweeB (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal life section of BLP

I am curious as to why you removed some info from Shriya Saran. Is it not proper to talk about the people that the subject is or has dated, especially if they are not married? That is certainly a big part of "personal life", no? Can you point me to some guidelines on what to, and what to not, include? BollyJeff || talk 17:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a recuurring discussion, which pretty uniformly comes out the same way. See this example from last week [8] at BLPN and the followup talk page discussion regarding Jessica Biel. The examples GRuban gives are pretty useful. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I did not mention any names, just saying that she dates men, as opposed to the alternative, ya know. I see even FAs out there with plenty of dating info, see Kirsten_Dunst#Personal_life, Preity_Zinta#Personal_life, Reese_Witherspoon#Personal_life for example. Are these all wrong too? BollyJeff || talk 16:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI - BLPN

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback - your contributions to this article have been mentioned in this report. thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Playboy Playmate - Playmate firsts - Ursula Buchfellner

You said unsourced. I found it in Teri Weigel's article first and also in Ursula Buchfellner's article including a reference (IMDB).

You also said unimportant. I fail to see how it's less important than being first xxx-born pm or first pm born in the 4/.../90s or first pm w/o pubic hair/with a tattoo. But of course YYMV.

Would it make sense to add her to "Notable Playmates" section like Teri Weigel? After all, Ursula has also done some b-movie work. 79.222.24.179 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

JWOWW

Why did you undo my changes to the JWOWW article, specifically citing the source as a problem? She describes the incident in that video and there are multiple episodes of the series where she has had similar bathroom issues. Furthermore, why is it that incontinence "lacks encyclopedic significance"? Is there some new Wikipedia guideline against taboo subject matter?KlappCK (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It was written in fanprose, it's based on a primary source with no evidence of secondary coverage, and if she does regularly get so drunk she's incontinenr, the appropriate disorder to link to would be substance abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to include the comments with an additional source, assuming good faith. You are welcome to change wording to point to substance abuse at your leasure. See these pages for my motivations for doing so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sourcing_For_Biographies_of_Living_Persons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrika_Jonsson#Personal_life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Bonham_Carter#Personal_life

Content like this about living persons has been allowed in the past, and it appears to reasonably satisfy the sourcing requirements given the nature of the subject. Cheers.KlappCK (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

please...

before undoing edits, please check what you are undoing. do you believe "candice" does not have any surname? what about the information i added to the persondata? that is obviously useful and doesn't require a reference since it's already in the article. guess you thought i was a new user, then please note: not every edit by a new user is vandalism. Durchschnittspornöse (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

you claim that "IMDB is by strong consensus not a reliable source for such biographical information". but for most real names of porn actresses and actors, there is no other source in the article. where do i find the discussion the result of which was that imdb is not a source for such information? --Durchschnittspornöse (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Start here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#Real_names_of_performers Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

alright, thank you. --Durchschnittspornöse (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Leto

You are currently doing an edit war. One of the rule states "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." First, there is no consensus to remove that material; it is sourced by reliable sources and is significant in the context of the subject's overall life and career. So why remove it? The article needs to be improved, and removing sourced material improves nothing. With your version there are things that seem trivial (not sure why they are in the article). Having been told he supported Obama's candidacy in the 2008 election, what does it add to the reader's understanding that he and his bandmates wore Obama T-shirts at one ceremony? Second, a the peer review there is a consensus to keep that content. Wikipedia's peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate, so you have to expose your reasons at the peer review if you don't agree with the consensus. This version represents consensus among editors therefore I will revert one more time.--Earthh (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping until you get a "consensus" of one hardly outweighs the on-article consensus, which exists despite your solo disagreement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Read the peer review. Best regards.--Earthh (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Careful

What you said here - well, I'm not going to address the topic of fairness to the late Brian Thomsen, but I do think that it is not the wisest choice for "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" to criticize other people for editing Wikipedia under pseudonyms. I politely suggest that you redact or retract that portion of your post. DS (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree. My objection isn't to editing under a pseudonym. It's to making a cowardly, groundless attack on a real-world-identified person, unfairly smearing the reputation of somebody who can't respond, out of entirely venal motives, while hiding behind a pseudonym. I don't make gratuitous personal attacks on dead folks, here or anywhere else. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Purely out of curiosity, may I ask what 'entirely venal motives' you mean? DS (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost without exception, the new editors who've shown in in these Janet Morris-related disputes are amateur or semi-professional writers who've sold stories to her, or are trying to sell stories to her, and seem either to be trying to curry favor with her and/or trying to promote books their work appears in. I can see no legitimate reason for implying that simply because Thomsen had on occasion to work with Silverberg, he'd be willing or prone to engage in unprofessional/dishonest/deceptive/underhanded behavior by faking a copyright attribution. If you've been following this interminable discussion from its beginning, you might remember that the Morris clique was arguing that such copyright attributions were the "gold standard" for resolving a dispute like this; but when the supposed "gold standard" is met, they resort to baseless personal attacks. That's been characteristic of that clique since the AFD which set off this vendetta, where the nominator was soon accused of "an ongoing, malicious bias to anything involving Janet Morris" because he expressed disapproval of one of her pet characters in a review published 25 freaking years ago. They think it's acceptable to disparage, without logic or evidence, anybody who crosses their path if it helps them promote their work. And "venal" is a pretty mild word for behavior like that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No one accused Brian Thomsen of any such behavior and you know it, or should. I knew Brian personally, worked with him professionally, and mourned his death. For you to accuse me of saying he acted unprofessionally, etc., is baseless and without merit. To suggest an editor might have had a bias in favor of a writer is not an attack on that editor's character. Rather, it acknowledges exactly what editors should do for their writers, and what Brian in fact did do for hs writers. He stood up for us when he could and honored and respected our work. You don't know me, I don't want you to know me (hence the username), and I wish you would stop misinterpreting my motives.74.124.97.52 (talk)Dokzap —Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC).

"If you've been following this interminable discussion from its beginning" -- I haven't; I just stepped in to try to resolve things. Which AfD, out of curiosity? DS (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyers in Hell, where several of the characters who have been teeing off on me of late were then singing my praises. Also please note that the IP who claims on your talk page to have not-for-public-view information about this dispute was recently blocked (for a week) as a sock of an editor with a COI. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, I get that you don't like these users, but you really do need to tone down the rhetoric a bit. As it stands, what I'm seeing in the above and at User talk:Hulcys930 is problematic in tone (to say the least). I get that this can be extremely frustrating (I'm not exactly happy to be dealing with it either), but civility is always the best way forward.

On an unrelated note, have you considered setting up archiving for this page? At 501 (current) sections and over 600 KB of (current) text, it's a bit clunky and takes a while to load. I find that User:MiszaBot III (instructions) does wonders for my talk page. Anyways, cheers. lifebaka++ 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo I do believe that we both want the same thing - the best WP article possible. I truly hope you are willing to tone down the rhetoric and bring this discussion back to a civil discourse.98.218.161.68 (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

After two months of steady comments like these from the Morris clique, you say I'm the one who "toned up" the rhetoric? Get real. A few statements from Hulcys930, which are almost entirely fabricated: The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. . . . OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz take turns making edits to the Morris pages so that it appears there is no one particular editor editing her pages. However, all that is needed is to go to ANY page for a Janet Morris novel or anthology and look at the history to see these three editors' names in an obvious "tag team" attack on each page. That charming "UrbanTerrorist" fellow regularly posted personal attacks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is acting irrationally, and should recuse himself or herself from editing these pages for WP:COI and claiming I would cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion before he got himself blocked for making various threats. Just today, the ever civil Mzmadmike told me "Learn to read, learn to be polite to your betters, and seek some therapy, fanboi." I'm grumpy over two months of garbage like this. Get over it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how "possibly biased" can be conflated with "This is utterly reprehensible garbage, a malicious smear of a well-respected man whose life was tragically cut short a few years ago and cannot defend his reputation. To suggest that Thomsen would somehow have decided to falsify copyright information in a book he edited, which would have [been] both unprofessional and dishonest, without a shred of evidence... etc." As you very well know, no one did anything of the sort. Please stop going off on tangents and trying to confuse the issue of the sources used to validate information. Also, I would personally appreciate it if you would stop using my talk page as a forum to insult my ethics and intentions. You do NOT know me, nor do you have a crystal ball telling you that I am an evil person who just wants to make you look bad (or who has some unknown personal grudge against you, Robert Silverberg, Brian Thomsen or anyone else).Hulcys930 (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

That's rich. You've spent two months calling me and various other editors dishonest, biased, incompetent, and all sorts of other things, without a shred of evidence. You've spent two months posting entirely false or grossly distorted statements insulting my "ethics and intentions." Nobody needs a crystal ball to figure out what your own words make clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Horse Manure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not telling the entire truth. Yes, I was banned. The ban wasn't because of threats per se, it was because I had talked about writing up my experiences with the Heroes in Hell pages, which have been unlike anything else I have ever been involved in on Wikipedia. I let Hullaballoo Wolfowitz get me upset, which was a mistake. That I will not do again. I do suggest you take a long look through his history on this. Every time Hullaballoo Wolfowitz looses a point he begins another round of personal attacks on those who take positions that he doesn't like. You are either for him 100%, or you get attacked. I think that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz needs to be banned until he learns better manners. 173.248.231.68 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. Your block log says, plain as day, "Threats (legal and otherwise)" were the reason for your block [9]. Your block notice says "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for making implied legal threats and threats to "publicize" the behavior of editors here, with the clear intent to disrupt Wikipedia processes." Are you saying the admin who blocked you wasn't "telling the whole truth"? There was a lengthy discussion at ANI over the incident, as well as on your talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't ridiculous. The Admin who instituted the block couldn't be expected to read a couple of hundred thousand words to understand exactly what was going on, and as you may have noticed, I am not blocked indefinitely. I am however asking for you to be blocked indefinitely. I've been a Wikipedia editor for longer than you have, and I have a powerful interest in making sure that this project runs well. In simple terms, I am a true believer in the Wikipedia mission. Based on your actions, you are not, and you are a huge embarrassment to the project. I've already given my reasons for wanting a ban to be instituted, there is no reason to repeat them. We have a huge problem here in that one editor has decided to place him or herself in conflict with every other editor who has worked on the articles in question. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. We need to find common ground. Feelings are being hurt, and egos are being bruised, and it's not good for anyone's blood pressure. Can we agree, at least, that we all want the best possible article on the subject?96.255.31.106 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Are you the same person as the one posting from IP 98.218.161.68? I certainly don't believe that Ms Hulcy does, give the long record of false statements and personal attacks she's made, directed at me and at other editors, has the slightest interest in accuracy. I don't believe that of UrbanTerrorist. And I don't believe that of Guarddog2, who scrounged up a mistake in a blog posted on the Locus website to supported a claim she knew was false (that none of the Silverberg stories involved were first published in IASFM). And, in the course of two months of sustained abuse directed at me by Morris associates, you, or the other IP, accused me of "trying to rewrite history and put both Morris and Silverberg in a bad light" -- but refused to explain in a substantive fashion how or in what way my statements were improper. Why don't you start by explaining why you believe that the statement that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" is factually inaccurate, in terms of standard bibliographic usage and Wikipedia practice? That's been the core of the dispute, after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We is you and I. I am the same person - had some IT issues at work, so my IP address must have changed. I believe the statement that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" is factually inaccurate, because, if you look at the copyright data again, you will notice that the Rebels in Hell creation date is 1985, while the IASFM serial creation date is 1986. Also, the first review of the complete work, Rebels in Hell, from which GITO was excerpted, was published four months before the IASFM excerpt was published. So the complete book existed well before the first serial, and was available in advance for review as was the norm back in mid-1980's.98.218.161.68 (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

HW, you express how frustrated you are at being contradicted by a number of editors. Have you ever thought that maybe all these "really mean" people are also frustrated with you because you are, for whatever reason, insisting on posting inaccurate information on pages that discuss books and stories that mean a great deal to us? I have personally been reading the Heroes in Hell series since it first came out, along with the Thieves' World books and The Sacred Band stories and characters that evolved from TW.

I'm not sure why you are so intransigent about trying to make sure no one thinks Bob Silverberg and Greg Benford actually wrote their Heroes in Hell stories for the series itself, but that is what actually happened.

I've never made the claim you describe. It's a figment of somebody's overheated imagination. You've never cited it, just like none of you ever cited the COI you claimed I had. It has nothing to do with the actual publication history. Isaac Asimov's "That Thou Art Mindful of Him" was commissioned for an anthology called Final Stage, but it was first published in F&SF, and is consistently credited that way. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 19:55, 11 August 2011 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (2,202 bytes) (rv, not previously discussed, and we do not merge Hugo-winning stories into low-rent series they're affiliated with; Undid revision 444313870 by UrbanTerrorist (talk)) (undo) (emphasis added) at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback&action=history[[10]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs)

That is obviously not the claim you said I made. It is evident you are making things up, just as you were when you claimed that Orangemike, Dravecky and I had engaged in a years-long jihad to somehow "attack" Morris and her writing. I may have a low opinion about the quality of the Heroes in Hell series, but I'm hardly alone. When it was first being published, a Hugo-nominated reviewer, writing in a Hugo-nominated zine, described it as "slipshod writing and unfulfilled possibilities. Heroes in Hell is a rehash of Farmer's Riverworld, but Morris and friends seem to insist on playing cutsey" and said the anthologies followed a pattern of "one good work by a name author . . . and a lot of Journeyman to Pedestrian quality words around it." Get over it. I've written a batch of articles fairly reporting on the history and critical reputation of books I've liked and loathed, and what has you so incensed is simply and accurately reporting the publication history of various stories in the same terms and under the same rules used in tens of thousands of other Wikipedia articles, as used by SFWA in crediting writers in its Nebula anthologies, as used by the publisher Gale in assembling its highly-regarded academic/reference bibliographies -- as used by pretty much everybody except your little circle. It's not an accident that you Morris dancers have no one to cite in support of yourselves except each other. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

HW: The above comment is the one YOU made when editing the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. It doesn't require any interpretation - the meaning is obvious. Since you are so devout a believer in sourcing information, would you mind posting the source of the "review" by the "Hugo-nominated reviewer" and the "Hugo-nominated zine" so that others may see what the source actually says and by whom it was said and when? Considering how you parsed the statements by Robert Silverberg when you wrote the imaginative description on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, this review could easily be about Felix the Cat. In 1986, the only "zines" were mimeographed on colored paper and passed out by hand, so I would be very interested in exactly when this review was written. I have offered to provide you scans of the rights pages of all 12 volumes of the original Heroes in Hell series so you can see for yourself that no attribution to any other publication was needed when the volumes were printed, but you appear not to be interested in anything that might refute your interpretation of how the publishing industry defines terms of art; or is it because you know you can't get away with accusing Baen of incompetence or malfeasance in attribution issues in 12 different books?Hulcys930 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Every author agreed to that clause when they signed their contracts to participate in Heroes in Hell -- including Silverberg and Benford -- that all stories submitted to Heroes in Hell would be original works never sold or published elsewhere, written in the shared universe/world of Heroes in Hell, based on the rules of that universe. That is a fairly common expectation/contract term for authors writing in any specific shared universe/world, so why are you so adamant that it did NOT apply to Silverberg and Benford regarding Heroes in Hell?

That's very lawyerlike of you, and that's not a compliment. Benford and Silverberg signed contracts guaranteeing that the stories they had written had never been published elsewhere at the time the stories were submitted. Because they retained first serial rights, they did not guarantee that their stories would not first be published in magazines in advance of the publication of the Morris anthologies. The "first" in "first serial" means "first", after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does - it means the first magazine to publish an excerpt from the upcoming book in this instance. When Baen paid the advance in the advance and royalty contract, he bought the rights to the original work and only Baen Books can claim to be the original publisher. First serial means an excerpt published prior to the release of the BOOK. The fact that the excerpt is a complete story is immaterial. That is what you are confusing. In this case the story was commissioned specifically as a chapter for the book REBELS IN HELL. You cannot divorce the intellectual property from the argument here. Those stories were written for the series using shared characters and milieu. Janet Morris even wrote a Gilgamesh story, "Gilgamesh Redux" in CRUSADERS IN HELL in 1987, before Silverberg wrote "The Fascination of the Abomination" in ANGELS IN HELL in 1987, and "Gilgamesh in Uruk" in 1988. All works in the series commingled and shared IP. And the version of the story that won the Hugo contained the series IP. If Asimov's had bought the right to claim to be the original publisher, as you are incorrectly attributing, then the story would have been a second serial reprint in Rebels in Hell, which it was NOT, and their would have to be an attribution on the copyright page. The Heroes in Hell contract was for ORIGINAL WORKS ONLY. There cannot be two original publishers. The SFWA definition provided by the lawyers applies.98.218.161.68 (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's become increasingly clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Nobody buys "the right to claim to be the original publisher", as you so strangely would have it. I'd love to see the contractual language you say governs that point. But even if you found it, it wouldn't control the content of a Wikipedia article. There are lots of books out there "ghost written" for celebrities, and their contracts routinely prohibit the "ghost" from claiming authorship. But Wikipedia reports the actual authorship when it's reliably sourced. Wikipedia is not censored. And since Rebels in Hell wasn't a magazine, the story's publication there couldn't have been a second serial publication under any circumstances. And your comment about the "attribution on the copyright page" is dead wrong, and you know it; in collective works like anthologies, it's acceptable to attach copyright notices to the individual stories (usually on the title page or last page), and that's what Janet Morris did with the HiH anthologies. Invective may be satisfying, by fact-checking is better. Perhaps, since you're citing an SFWA paper for your side of the argument, you could explain why, when SFWA included Benford's "Newton Sleep" in a Nebula anthology. SFWA, on the copyright page, credited the magazine where it made its first appearance, without using those magic words "first serial", and gave no credit whatever to Janet Morris or the Heroes in Hell anthology where it was republished. Are you now saying SFWA's copyright credit is somehow defamatory, the way you say my description is? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

It is absolutely amazing that of all the editors involved in this dispute YOU are the only one who has any real understanding of the publishing industry and its standards and practices. Did I miss your bibliography? Every time anyone tries to correct your misunderstanding of a publishing term, you immediately and insultingly discount everything they have said and then fall back to your position that reality does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. So, in other words, creating a particular reality in the pages of Wikipedia that applies nowhere else is all that is important to you - regardless of the actual events, contracts controlling a situation, or any other reality involved in the subject matter. You focus on minutia you can attack as not being accurate while baldly stating that accuracy is not important to Wikipedia. Your insistence on manipulating information for your own purposes is one of the reasons why most college students are no longer allowed to use Wikipedia as a source for anything they turn in to their professors. That is really a shame because the original concept of Wikipedia is terrific and, unfortunately, very idealistic - they just didn't take into account petty dictators who believe if they argue loud enough and long enough, everyone who disagrees with them eventually will just give up (usually because they have lives) so the dictator wins based on "the last person standing" criteria and the truth is the only real victim.Hulcys930 (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The difference between you and all the "Morris-clique" editors you decry is that you are trying to post incorrect information about the Heroes in Hell series, while others are trying to change the pages back to reflect what actually happened, even though you view the situation from the exact opposite position, when you, in fact, do not really know what happened and seem to be making the mistake of many prosecutors: decide what you believe first and then look for evidence to back up that theory, rather than trying to find out what really happened. I am literally at a loss as to how to resolve this dispute when no matter what anyone tells you and no matter how many ways the situation is explained, you completely discount anything I or any other editors say who disagree with you, and refuse to even consider any information presented that does not back up how you view the situation. I know you realize that you can find any information you wish to somewhere on the web; but just because you can find something three places does not mean it is correct.

That's an irrefutable argument, and an utterly irrelevant one. There are multiple reliable sources supporting the chronology, showing that the stories involved were first published in magazines before appearing in the Morris anthologies. There are no reliable sources saying otherwise. Even Janet Morris acknowledged the accuracy of the chronology, however much she may now wish to deny it. This high-school-class solipsism, half-baked infinite regress, claiming in effect that no sources can be definitively reliable, is just a weak-kneed excuse for denying the empirical world.

That's the way this dispute has gone from the beginning. You and the whole sorry crew of Morris dancers originally insisted that the magazine publication happened after the books appeared. After that was refuted, you (collectively) argued that the set of sources I originally provided wasn't reliable enough. When I provided sources that met the "gold standard" your cadre asked for, suddenly trhe objection was completely changed; now the factual chronology is irrelevant, standard bibliographic practice is irrelevant, the otherwise uncontroversial practice of Wikipedians expressed in tens of thousands of articles is irrelevant -- only your opinion of how a set of private contracts can be written about governs, rather than the standard terms of discussion in the real world. Wikipedia isn't party to those contracts, and neither Wikipedia nor anyone else is governed by what's bouncing around inside your heads. Wikipedia writes about what's verifiable in the real world, using the language of the real world. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That argument might hold water if not for the fact that every editor except you agreed to the wording of a completely neutral chronology after an extended Dispute Resolution: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." Insisting on clinging to terminology which is incorrect (but generally understood) in favor of terminology from a specific industry (which can be easily defined for all users) is no reason to insist on trying to use that incorrect terminology to bolster an inaccurate concept. Is Wikipedia supposed to inform the reader or insult their intelligence by saying they won't be able to comprehend "terms of art" when defined? Hulcys930 (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Once again, not true, and you know it's not true. Three editors supported Jethrobot's formulation, but not Dokzap's. Guarddog2/Morris "endorsed" both (which pretty well puts the lie to your insistence that it's "incorrect information."). Three or four editors, all but one with COIs, supported only Dokzap's. That hardly matches up to what you said -- especially since your cadre reopened the argument after agreement had been reached and other editors had left the discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I, personally, deeply apologize for any unkind language or accusations I have made against you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and promise never to engage in such language in the future. (Really, I don't practice witchcraft.) It would be good if you could look at information, furnished by the editors whom you feel have been persecuting you, with a fresh eye, without hearing a sneering or condescending tone in what is being said, even though I know you really feel justified in completely dismissing everything said by people whom you consider to be "single purpose editors" -- although I don't really understand why you assume those editors would automatically have nefarious intentions since they are obviously only interested in something about which they feel deeply... I will also see if it is possible to furnish you with some information you would consider truthful. Would a scan of the rights (permissions) page of every Heroes in Hell book help? Maybe there would be a way I could post the jpegs of each page somewhere you could access them. I'd probably have to get permission from an administrator or something, but it still might be possible. Please let me know. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The above comment was made one week ago and received no response; there also was no change in the "tone" of the editing commentary. I removed the apology since it had obviously done no good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC) In looking so hard for "evidence" of "promotional editing" and parsing every single statement made trying to find inconsistencies on which to pounce, you are missing the point entirely: the WP pages need to reflect reality accurately. That is all anyone wants, no matter how hard you try to convince other editors and administrators that every change made to any of the related pages is an attempt to use WP for promotional purposes. It would be really nice if you could just move on and become obsessed with something else. The pages now all reflect a neutral, chronological publishing history, regardless of who suggested it or who agreed or disagreed with the wording. Please leave it the way Lifebaka suggested it be worded.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Luci Thai

Hello, I wrote the post on Luci Thai and learned that it has been deleted. She is an award nominated pornographic actress, which to me would mean she is notable. AVN is the industry standard for achievement and performance awards and she was nominated for the Best New Starlet award. I don't understand how this doesn't classify her as notable person. Any assistance you can provide, along with what I should have added in addition to my sources in order to keep her page posted on the site would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Per WP:PORNBIO, a single award nomination is insufficient to establish notability. Moreover, a similar version of the article had been deleted by community consensus, and you should review the arguments there. The just-deleted article had no reliably sourced biographical content, raising serious problems under WP:BLP. Frankly, there's very little chance anything you could legitimately add to the article that would establish notability, but your best chance would be to find sourcing outside the standard industry PR machinery. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Outside viewpoint

After a lengthy conversation with the IP editor (who showed me publishing contracts from the 1980s, which are not for public consumption), I can say that there are three ways to read the situation:

• one which puts blame on the late Brian Thomsen,
• one which puts blame on Robert Silverberg,
• and one which puts no blame on anyone.

However, that third instance involves terms of art which I believe you may not be interpreting correctly. This is the problem with terms of art: they can sometimes have meanings which are completely counter-intuitive. Can we agree that the third instance is the preferred one? DS (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No, we can't. An unidentified person has sent you unverified documents which can assign undescribed "blame" for an undescribed "situation" which has an undescribed relationship to the article involved. What can any of that have to do with the simple chronological, factual question of the publishing history of the story in question. I haven't interpreted any "terms of art" here. What you're saying here doesn't make a bit of sense. I don't see how reporting publication dates accurately involves placing "blame" on anyone. Reliable, public record sources, provide all the essential information. "I have these documents that nobody can look at that prove published reliable sources wrong" is hardly consistent with Wikipedia policy, especially since BLP is involved. And how can Brian Thomsen possibly be involved in the issue of the publication date of "Gilgamesh in the Outback," since he wasn't working for or with any of the parties involved with regard to the story's original publication. If Morris and Silverberg had some sort of the dispute about the novel that Thomsen published at Questar, that might be relevant content for an article about that book, but it's got nothing to do with the content issues here. Finally, I can't see how these contracts have anything to do with the issue the IP raised to begin with, which was the explained (and, frankly, baseless) claim that I somehow deceptively edited a quotation from Silverberg. Until he/she explains that, nobody should be paying attention to the claim. The Morris fans have an easily recognized history of making claims in this dispute against me, against Dravecky, against OrangeMike, which they repeat but never back up. And so far as I can see, this is just another one of them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballo Wolfowitz has researched the publication chronology of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" to show that the July 1986 Asimov's publication has an earlier June sell date, as opposed to the July 1986 publication of the Rebels in Hell publication. This is good research for which he should be commended. HW cites, for example, an acknowledgments page in Brian Thomsen's edited book as an example of its "first publication" in Asimov's (the edition Thomsen cites).

In HW's edits of WP: Gilgamesh in the Outback, however, he uses the word "originally" in place of "first published." This may be a term of art that DS refers to -- the distinctions publishing uses to describe author and publisher rights.

For example, in the publishing industry, such terms of art include phrases like "first serial," an accurate description of the Asimov's publication. Silverberg has written that he was invited to write for the Heroes in Hell series, and that Gilgamesh in the Outback was his story for it. I would guess that the contracts DS refers to mention granting Silverberg first serial rights, that is, the first right to sell the story in a magazine. DS, is this such a term of art you saw in those contracts?

I agree with the "no blame" solution, especially since it avoids controversy. To "blame" Silverberg and say he wrongly described how he created his story is absurd -- he should know. To "blame" Thomsen for not fully citing in the acknowledgments page might be credible, but because Thomsen included in his edited collection commentary from Silverberg showing the story's history, Thomsen corrects the slight error of not noting the Rebels in Hell/Heroes in Hell publication. As the I Ching says, "No blame. It furthers one to cross the great water."74.124.97.52 (talk) 06:03, 22 September 2011, Dokzap (talk)Dokzap

"Originally published" is not a "term of art." It is a common, plain language term whose meaning is clear. The phrase "originally published" is used, in its natural sense, in more than 10,000 Wikipedia articles [11]. It is such standard Wikipedia terminology that it's used in the title of more than 300 categories (see Category:Works_originally_published_in_magazines_by_country, Category:Works_originally_published_in_American_magazines, Category:Works_originally_published_in_magazines_by_interest) Moreover, the "originally published" phrasing had been used in the GITO longs before I first edited it; the story was placed in the category "Literature originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" in January 2011 (the category title was changed from "literature" to "works" a few weeks later). Nobody has advanced anything resembling authority or sourcing even suggesting this very common, very standard usage is in any way inappropriate.

As for the argument that the copyright acknowledgments in the Thomsen anthology were incorrect/incomplete, that's simply not valid. Note, for example, that exactly the same form of acknowledgment was used when Benford's HiH story "Newton Sleep" was included in the annual Nebula anthology [12] -- chronologically first magazine publication cited, no reference to the HiH publication. This is the norm, and the legal requirement. There's no "blame" to be placed on Thomsen, Silverberg, or anyone else, because nothing was done inappropriately. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I also believe the "term of art" you are misunderstanding is "first serial" which refers to the person who has purchased the rights to a story allowing the author to sell "first serial" rights to a magazine to print the same story. This is often done when the story has been nominated for a prestigious award, like a Hugo, because it gives the author wider exposure to the people who will be voting. This does not mean the story was written expressly for the magazine buying the "first serial" rights; nor does it mean the magazine becomes the owner of the rights; it simply means the owner of the IP has allowed the author to make an agreement with a magazine to ALSO print the same story. I know you don't like this "term of art," deny it's existence in publishing, and would rather it was not a reality; however, the above was the situation 25 years ago and DS (talk) has apparently seen the original contracts controlling that particular situation with Mr. Silverberg (and possibly the contract with Mr. Benford also). I know you insist that anything backing up the claim that GITO was written for Heroes in Hell is fraudulent or falsified or altered (although until you started insisting this was untrue, no one had even looked at those contracts in a couple of decades and never needed to alter or fabricate them) and will not be convinced, even though I do not know WHY you are so insistent that Mr. Silverberg could not possibly have written GITO for Heroes in Hell, Mr. Silverberg and the contracts say otherwise. Hulcys930 (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ms Hulcy, you fundamentally misunderstand what "first serial" means. It does not mean "the owner of the IP has allowed the author to make an agreement with a magazine to ALSO print the same story." It is a right controlled by the author. When you wrote a story under a work-for-hire agreement with Janet Morris, you in effect transferred that right to Morris. Silverberg did not write GITO under a work-for-hire contract, so Morris only controls the rights which Silverberg agreed to sell her -- which did not include the "first serial" rights at issue here. Virtually every sale of a piece of fiction to a magazine involves the sale of first serial rights; it's not something ordinarily remarked on because it's inherent when the magazine is the first publisher of a work. Work-for-hire contracts, by the way, are very much not the norm for prose fiction (media tie-ins aside); note that Morris herself controls her Tempus character from Thieves' World, just as Marion Zimmer Bradley published Lythande outside that franchise. As for tes rest of your comments, I have never said anything of the sort, and you know it. Your persistent invention of baseless accusations to harass and harangue editors you disagree with is uncivil and disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Oh my! You might want to take that crystal ball back to where you bought it, because it keeps giving you bad information. Neither I, nor any of the other writers in Lawyers in Hell, signed a "work-for-hire" contract with Ms. Morris. I spent several decades working on contracts (Publishing, IP, Mergers and Acquisitions, Collective Bargaining, etc.) with lawyers, so I am very aware of the provisions of any contract I sign on my own behalf. (Yes, I DO know what a work-for-hire contract is and I would not sign one regarding an intellectual property.)

So, where you charge me with making "baseless accusations", are you now saying you are NOT attempting to prove Mr. Silverberg wrote GITO independently of the Heroes in Hell series, then sold it to Ms. Morris later, and that it just happened to be printed in Asimov's shortly before the anthology was released? I thought that was one of your main contentions regarding these articles. I could have sworn you said:

"Finally, for reasons that I cannot fathom, editors here are denying the plain facts that some of the best-known and best-received stories in the series were initially published in other outlets and reprinted in the anthologies themselves. One editor has explicitly changed the publishing history to state the series' most famous story, "Gilgamesh in the Outback," was "subsequently" reprinted by the science fiction magazine where it was actually first published. This is an outright lie, part of the mindless promotional editing that afflicts this article.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)"

"I'm particularly struck by the fact that the partisan editors here, while trying to meticulously document all sorts of trivial references to the series, are also working industriously to expunge any references to the fact that its best-known component work is part of Robert Silverberg's independently created "Gilgamesh" sequence, which began with a novel which has nothing to do with "Heroes in Hell" and continues with a novel which, although its parts were also reprinted in various series anthologies, was published outside the series without any conspicuous reference to it.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)"

I'm pretty sure that in the above statements, you insist Mr. Silverberg did not write GITO for Heroes in Hell because he had used Gilgamesh as a character in a prior novel (I guess the other two stories don't matter because they did not win Hugos) and that the appearance of his stories in the Heroes in Hell series constitute "reprints" which to most readers means "this story was written for publication elsewhere and later the author was paid by [this publication] to "reprint" their story and it was not changed substantially to fit in with the rest of the [publication]." However, Mr. Silverberg himself said the following:

"During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. [...] It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that." Brian Thomsen (ed.), Novel Ideas -- Fantasy, DAW Books, 2006, pp.205-06 (story introduction by Robert Silverberg)[Emphasis added.]

Now, HW, to me this sounds like Mr. Silverberg is saying

• He wrote the stories for the Heroes in Hell series (back when people could not communicate in real time and send massive quantities of information to each other instantaneously, making it much harder to share ideas and collaborate on stories);
• He was appropriately proud of the fact his first novella for Heroes in Hell won a Hugo for a "shared-world story" which was unusual, and
• He had fun writing the three stories for the series.

This is from the same source you used to "prove" the exact opposite of what Mr. Silverberg says. So, no, I'm not engaging in the "persistent invention of baseless accusations" in this matter. I will be very interested to see how you attempt to overturn the information in your favorite source that contradicts completely your theory of how GITO came about and its relation to the Heroes in Hell series.Hulcys930 (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I put this on the Heroes in Hell (book) page and post it here in the hopes that this will add to the distinction between "originally published" and "first serial." My comments follow: By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mr. Ollie have done on the Heroes in Hell series article, the Heroes in Hell anthology article, and Robert Silverberg's "Giglamesh in the Outback" articles, HW and Mr Ollie repeat the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and b) confuses a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." , p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form, or when a magazine is the acquiring publisher. However, to use it to refer to a first serial of part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a first-serial publication, in my opinion using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book. It can be inferred that a publication that appears first in partial form and later in a book by the acquiring publisher is a first-serial right. As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance. The colloquial use of "original publication" may not always be precise or accurate. Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz and Mr Ollie in the latest revision of the Heroes in Hell anthology, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and as a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which I mine opinion is not verifiable at all.Dokzap (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Nomination for Speedy deletion of Houtan Delfi‎

I'm curious to know as why a credible claim to importance is relevant in this case given that my nomination was based on criterion G4. Best Regards. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, too; I've got no recollection of this one. My best guess is that I had a batch of tabs open and accidentally pulled a speedy tag from the wrong article. Sorry about that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Jared Leto

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Jared Leto". Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)