User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 08

Contractual terminology

It has been suggested that this document may provide illumination on certain parts of the dispute. DS (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does, which is why I introduced it into the discussion in the relevant DRN discussion [1], where as I recall my reading of the document was generally regarded as accurate. I assume you're referring to one of Dokzap's comments about "subsidiary rights," where Dokzap is misunderstanding the context of the quoted discussion and reaches an inaccurate conclusion. The SFWA-sponsored presentation deals primarily with the sale and publication of novels and similar book-length works; note that the very fist paragraph of its introduction refers to "various types of books" and that the text includes phrases like "contracts for book-length manuscripts" (p6), "an author is likely to be concerned with certain aspects of the publication of his/her book" (p9), and "most trade book publishing agreements" (p12). The subsidiary rights section he cites describes the most common types of subsidiary rights which may be, but not always are, transferred when books are sold to book publishers. Note also that among the "subsidiary" rights identified are "Publication of the entire work in hardcover (including leatherbound or deluxe) editions or paperback editions." This does not mean that all book-length publications are based on "subsidiary" rights. Instead, it indicates that when a book is sold to a hardcover publisher, that publisher, under a typical contract, also acquires the right to control its paperback publication. Which rights are "subsidiary" (as opposed to "primary" or whatever) depends on the nature of the sale. For most short fiction, the "first serial" sale is the primary sale, not the exercise of a subsidiary right; indeed, in most cases, the sale which results in the first publication is the "primary" sale. We could keep dissecting this language and greater and even more tedious length, but I think it's very important to recognize that Guarddog2/Janet Morris endorsed the use of the phrase "originally published" as used in the GITO article as it stands as I write [2]. I am therefore beyond baffled that several of her associates deny its accuracy. I can produce a huge list of published texts where the phrasing is used in the same way I used it (and 10,000 or so other Wikipedia articles use it), e.g. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My point in citing the SFWA document was to establish a neutral, authoritative source for understanding publishing contract terms. As I have said elsewhere, while "originally published" in many circumstances can be adequate for general WP usage, when discussing the relationship between a magazine publication of a work and a book publication of a work, "originally published" is imprecise. If a work was written for book publication, either as a novel or as a short story in an original anthology (that is, an anthology of works originally created for that anthology), then magazine sales of excerpts from that work are treated as serial rights. If I understand what Hullaballo Wolfowitz has written above, he/she confuses a contract for a work originally created for a magazine with a contract for a work originally created for a book. These are different entities.

For book contracts, and as explained in the SFWA publication, serial rights often are considered as subsidiary rights. In a book contract a publisher typically purchases a main body of rights (mass market paperback, trade paperback, and hardcover, for example) and then lists other rights the publisher may wish to exercise in the future, collectively grouped as "subsidiary rights." These can include first-serial and second-serial rights, reprint rights, foreign rights, drama rights, etc. (The wise writer and agent will delete a subsidiary rights clause, by the way, or negotiate firmer terms.) For novels, first serial rights often are seen as a way to promote a book. First serial rights usually appear before a book comes out, or about the same time, and the author earns money from that right. I have known editors (Brian Thomsen, for example) who jiggered first serial sales to benefit a writer. Sometimes, a first serial sale is done before the official release date of a book, but the work comes out after the book. I had a first serial sale that appeared in an August cover date F&SF for a novel with a June publication date.

An original anthology book actually has two sets of contracts. First, the editor has a contract with the publisher to edit and deliver a collection of stories. The editor then contracts with the authors for the right to put those stories in that collection. A generous editor might only buy the right to publish in the book and reserve all other rights to the authors, including first serial rights. Often authors get a share of royalties earned. If a writer sells first-serial rights, there is then a contract with a magazine to purchase those rights. If the author then makes a novel out of the story, there will be another book contract.

All of which is why without knowing the complexities of the contracts regulating how a short story can be published, and by whom, blanket statements such as "originally published" can lead one into error. The phrase in many uses should be cited. However, in terms of WP and an article discussing a work's bibliography, a simple statement of facts using traditional publication information will suffice and avoid errors that arise when using what might appear to be commonplace terms.Dokzap (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap.

That's a lovely, vague, theoretical discussion entirely unsupported by any authority or documentation of usage. As I pointed out, and you certainly can't deny in good faith, the phrase "originally published", and forms like "original publication" are quite commonly used to indicated first chronological publication, particularly in bibliographies and similar reference works. For example, Ashley and Contento's The Supernatural Index, a standard reference bibliography for anthologies of supernatural/fantasy fiction, uses the term "original" to indicate first chronological publication and lists Asimov's SF as the original publication of "Gilgamesh in the Outback". (Contento is the best-regarded, award-winning bibliographer in the field, and his reference works are held by hundreds and hundreds of reference libraries.) Perhaps you might care to provide some sort of authority indicating why this standard, traditional bibliographic usage bibliographic usage could somehow "lead one into error" when used in an encyclopedia. Did anyone ever say such a thing before these discussions on Wikipedia? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Two points: 1) Janet Morris did not endorse the use of the "originally published" language - she endorsed I, Jethrobot's proposed non-controversial consensus wording where it was merely stated that GITO was published in both venues, without any attribution to originality;

The hell she didn't. You are just, plainly, not telling the truth. This [13] is the edit Jethrobot made, which she endorsed. Plain as day, it left the phrasing "originally published" in the article while changing "reprinted" to "then printed." Guarddog2/Morris, in part quoting Jethrobot, quite expressly endorsed the article's "reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright"[14]. You're now arguing that accurate information "reflecting the chronological publication order" shouldn't be in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The following is from Janet Morris refuting you calling me a liar:

I've collapsed a wall of text, crossposted from Guarddog2/Janet Morris's talk page, where anyone who wants to can read it. All that it actually says about the text I cited amounts to "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I endorse WP presenting only the actual facts about the Heroes in Hell(TM) series, and not Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's consistent misunderstanding and misstatements of the facts I was hoping never to return to this debate, however, Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is now claiming I endorse positions and editions based on his positions, which are incorrect. I do not accept any statement that any story for the HIH series was "originally published" anywhere else because this is untrue and contrary to the contract between me and every writer in the series. Here are the facts about Heroes in Hell(TM), its various volumes and stories printed elsewhere which must be correctly stated. I am aware that WP has a BLP ongoing. I prefer not to participate in any more endless debates, but to say here for the record that my rights and the rights of approximately 34 writers are being misstated by HW and potentially damaged when "originally published" is used to indicate that a story from Heroes in Hell had a first serial or promotional inclusion elsewhere. Heroes in Hell is a shared universe series, which means certain intellectual property belongs to the series and to me as its proprietary/editor, such as milieu and characters created for the series. The contract under which the books were written for me and my contract with Baen Books for the 20th century volumes of HIH stipulates that all stories commissioned by me and guided by me and created for my series by ALL authors are to be original and written to take place in and include the Heroes in Hell series milieu and concept, which is my intellectual property, created by me and subsequently contributed to by the various writers in full understanding of their contract terms and conditions. For this reason, the Baen Books volumes cite no permissions and no earlier publications on the copyrights pages and each clearly states that each book is a "Baen Books Original." This is legal and correct in terms that Simon & Schuster accepts and the US Copyright Law accepts because THE STORIES ARE CREATED FOR AND ORIGINAL TO the HIH series. The placement of first serials or free promotional placement (as in the case of the story Baslieus, which I co-wrote) in magazines or other books in no way clouds or diminishes the fact that each story was commissioned by me and created under my direction as an original story for my shared universe series, or that every author signed the same contract, each author warranting that the story I commissioned and which each author delivered would be an original story. Nor does such promotional publication diminish the requirement that the Heroes in Hell characters and milieu created by me and others belongs to the series as a whole. The Library of Congress "original" copyright date for each volume (listed under the volume and my name and thereafter including the names of the other writers) is as much as a year before the publication date. For Rebels in Hell this copyright office date is 1985. Any attempt to prove primacy based on dates of availability is immaterial and doomed to fail because of the lag time between original copyright date and publication. By US contract law and publishing law, all stories written for HIH series were required to be original to the series and one look at the volumes' rights pages proves this by the lack of permissions citations required thereon. Any "editor" should know this, whether a Wikipedia editor or any other kind of editor. If you apply the standards HW is attempting to apply to establishing GITO's "original" publication (a nonstandard term and an immaterial term in any case), every other book and story in WP should be immediately subject to the same extensive scrutiny and potential revision of their WP pages. Since in the mid-1980s it was common for portions of as-yet unpublished books to be included in other books or magazines with earlier publication dates (even including other books by other authors) in order to promote upcoming book releases, and this was often done by verbal agreement, thousands of titles would have to be re-investigated if WP wants to prove "original" publication status for each and every case. On the WP page about Gilgamesh in the Outback (GITO), which exists because the story is Nebula Award nominated and Hugo Award winning, focus should be maintained on the version that won the award, which was the version created under my direction for Rebels in Hell and submitted to me as original and purchased by me as original, and also first-serialized in IASFM. If any Silverberg quotations are added, they should be those that explain that in order to compile his 3 HIH stories into a volume to be sold by him outside the series, he was obligated to remove the proprietary HIH material to avoid copyright violation issues. Since by doing so, the GITO story in Silverberg's resulting novel was no longer the award-winning version, discussing this novelized version of GITO on a page dedicated to the award-winning version at all is discursive. I suggest, since all problems have solutions, that a simpler and less controversial wording be adopted, or correct publishing terminology be used. Perhaps it could be said that story X was published in magazine X AND book x, and avoid the issue of applying non-standard publishing language altogether. The sequentiality issue is the problematic one. Or use correct publishing terminology, such as "Published in X book on A date and first-serialized in Y magazine on B date. In closing: I endorse none of HW's edits or statements or selective quotations on the topic of Heroes in Hell series and its stories, which statements and edits are at best confused and at worst misleading. Guarddog2 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)98.218.161.68 (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

and 2) I am sure you can find 10,000 examples of where a story was created and sold first to a venue such as Asimov's, and was there "published originally". But I am equally sure you could probably find 2,000 examples for every 10,000, where that is not the case, i.e. where the story was created for another publisher to be included in a book or anthology and sold as a subsidiary right, to be published in a venue like Asimov's under the first serial definition provided in the SFWA documment. For example, if Tom Clancy sells his new book, "The Sum of All Nightmares" to Putnam, and then the New York Times publishes a first serial full chapter excerpt two weeks prior to book release, by your definition, the New York Times is the "original publisher", since the excerpt came chronologically first. Only the contracts between author and publisher can provide verifiability beyond a shadow of a doubt in these cases, where the bibliographic evidence is incomplete.

Well, first of all, the bibliographic evidence is in no way incomplete. Not even Guarddog2/Morris denied the accuracy of chronology in the article, as confirmed by US Copyright Office records. Second, for all the caterwauling coming from this company of Morris dancers, none of you has provided any authority, citation, reference, or whatever, aside from your vaguely stated opinion that the commonly used phrase "originally published in" signifies anything beyond chronological sequence. or that, even if it might, there's anything in the slightest bit inappropriate in using it in its standard language and its bibliographical sense, in an encyclopedia article. As I pointed out, it's used in that sense in 10,000 other Wikipedia articles without objection, even in cases where it violates the "rule" you claim exists (eg, By Bizarre Hands). And, by the way, the contracts cannot provide evidence "beyond a shadow of a doubt" about future events, like the ultimate publication sequence. For example, in 1969 Galaxy held first serial rights to Herbert's Dune Messiah. But, through mismanagement and bad planning, they spread the serialization out over too many installments, then suffered publication delays so long that the book version appeared well before the serialization was complete. Contracts tell us what rights parties have, not whether they exercised them in the expected sequence. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

In this case, we have provided DS with the exact contract language that ALL the original 19 Heroes in Hell franchise authors signed. GITO was commissioned to be written within a specific milieu i.e. the Heroes in Hell shared universe per the franchise agreement for the book "Rebels in Hell", and not as a standalone work. Only BAEN Books has the right to claim that it is the original publisher. They bought the primary rights under an advance and royalty contract. First serial rights are addressed in that contract (per the provided definition - publication "prior to" book release). GITO in this instance is an excerpt from the book. It is a chapter of the anthology to be taken as a part of the whole. Were this not the case, then how do you explain this statement in the Heroes in Hell contract which every author signed: "The author represents that the story is original and has never been published in any form." If that is not the case, as you are claiming, then you are in fact accusing Silverberg, Benford, and all the other authors who exercised their first serial rights as delineated in the Heroes in Hell contract of fraud, since by your definition they created the works "originally" for Asimov's or any other magazine used to advertise the upcoming book and lied when they signed their Heroes in Hell contracts. Look at the creation dates in the copyright information. Rebels in Hell was created in 1985. The Asimov's Magazine issue with the book excerpt was created in 1986. So the book pre-exists the magazine article. Chronological availability of a product to purchase is meaningless in this instance. You can see why so many respected authors are upset with your insistence on using general language bibliographic definitions instead of defining specific terms of art used in the publishing industry for the WP readership. I am sure you were just trying to write the best possible article with the information you had available to you, but please correct these oversights now that you have verification of the actual contract terms. I know you have stated in the past that the WP readership would not understand these terms of art, and that is why you are so adamant against using them, but I'm sure a well written article commissioned to explain them simply, could enlighten and educate all of us. WP is an encyclopedia after all.96.255.31.106 (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

Am I the only one thinking that these two accounts at the Noel Ashman bio are the same person? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks very likely to me. I tried to clean up/update the article not too long ago, but that was fruitless. Gossip columns are more recently reporting that he's running a Manhattan strip club [15], and that his birthday last year was celebrated at a bowling alley [16], but somehow that sort of detail never gets added (not that it should be, giving the sourcing quality). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to get ticked finally and go through the tedious SPI process at some point. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Noel Ashman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Noel Ashman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Ashman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. I've provided this courtesy notification as one of the significant contributors to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

George Craig (musician)

You removed all of the references from this article and then tagged it as unreferenced. I've added some references back to the article. In the future, please don't delete references from reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The references I removed, several weeks ago, either didn't support the claims they were cited for, or supported ancient gossip that didn't belong in the article. After three weeks, when nobody had improved the article, I added the sourcing tag. Two of those three sources are quite lousy and the third, a very brief interview, includes no content establishing notability. The article should probably be redirected to the relevant band article, since those references establish little more than his band membership. When quality references are removed from an article as ancillary to appropriately removed text, editors aren't expected to go a scavenger hunt to fund other claims the might be cited for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Kelly Hu charities

Can you let me know your thinking for deleting the references to the charities Kelly Hu has worked for? The links to the actual charities and other references are included. In the comment you said they were promotional - did you object to promoting the charities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgrudd (talk • contribs) 18:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I need to report an Administrator suspect Wiki Stalking

Hi I am still new to Wiki and have been activley participating in doing Wiki updates and adding new articles, I would like some guidance on an article that I wrote that had a significant amount of references as well the individual was a part of something Significant in Military History. It was deleted repeatedly and I saw the notes I changed it made edits then the same administrator submitted it for deletion again and said the person is not notable..please help with this? this is in regard to an article marked Kimberly J. Bowles that was deleted today. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starpreneurgoddess (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When you create an article and it's deleted, then recreate the article under a different title, that's going to attract attention -- and keeping an eye out for behavior like that isn't wikistalking. Given that the same inappropriate content is up for deletion at wikinews, credited to a different user, it's hard to say that a bit of extra scrutiny shouldn't be in order. Bluntly, the text I see in the Google cache for both the Bowles and Jessy version of the article shouldn't survive a speedy deletion challenge (even if one of the five speedies so far cited the wrong reason). Even more bluntly, while it would be possible to strip the article of all the promotional language and other inappropriate content, down to a form that could survive a speedy, I wouldn't bother; the likelihood of surviving the standard deletion process, with his stricter requirements for articles, is pretty much nil. Bowles wasn't involved in the actual Tailhook scandal, and her own harassment claim would fail the NOTNEWS test. In addition, an adequate article would be required by our NPOV policy to include the reliably sourced related negative information that's been reported, and that wouldn't be doing the subject any favors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I took a look at the most recently deleted version of Kimberley J. Bowles (admins can look at deleted pages), and it very much falls under WP:BLP1E. She is "famous" basically as being the victim of a crime (well, not a crime, per se, but a scandal). We very intentionally do not have articles on such people, because doing so would basically perpetuate the crimes committed against them. Unless Bowles was notable for something beyond the Tailhook scandal, or her own role in it was so large that it was repeatedly reported in many different venues in a lot of detail, then there shouldn't be an article on her. I'm not entirely certain it should have been speedily deleted, as those requirements are far more strict, but I guarantee that the article would eventually be deleted by another deletion process even if it had been allowed to last for a week or more. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Emma Roberts

Re your edit here. The statement is a verified fact, the usage of 'gossip' at the BLP policy page states:

"Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

The information is verifiable/true/reliable (confirmed by other party) and in my opinion a star's social and personal life is indeed relevant to the depth of their media coverage. When I randomly thought of and looked at some other actors' articles - (Hugh Jackman, Kristen Stewart, Emma Watson, Scarlett Johansson, Julia Roberts) - they all have extensive personal life sections which usually detail their romances and/or marriages. One man's gossip is another man's news...perhaps interested editors could weigh in on Talk:Emma Roberts with their thoughts? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Hulla's removal of material from personal section. See note on Robert's discussion page. --BweeB (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Up With The Kardashians

Hi there, I would like to request your opinion if the tags on the article are appropriate within the guidelines of an article appearing here. I have a lot of changes I have been working on with Microsoft Word, but this page feels like a internet fan page and not an encyclopedic article. Also I am requesting a response on my page as your talk page is full of 500 plus entries which freezes my internet browser. Thank you for understanding. And please consider archiving your talk page if it has not already been discussed help from other parties on Wikipedia is out there, just ask and they will help you archive your page for you. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Steve Ditko image

Hi, I would like to know what "violation" you are talking about when deleting the picture I uploaded. ‎In fact, the self-portrait drawn by Ditko is a non-free image, and I have uploaded other non-free images (under a fair rationale use) to other artists infoboxes and never had a problem with any editor or administrators. I think we should resolve our dispute here, because I'm sure that the photo uploaded does not infringe any terms of use in Wikipedia, but if you think I'm wrong, feel free to let me know your reasons. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

From WP:NFC#UUI: [Examples of unacceptable uses] "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. . . . However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career." "Famously reclusive" was rejected by consensus as an exception to this standard on several occasions, most recently last year in discussions regarding Japanese pornographic actresses. There also appear to be one or more free equivalent(s) available (high school yearbook photos), although the copyright status has not yet, to my knowledge, been definitely established.

As for the existing infobox image, it survived a deletion discussion recently; the consensus there rested in part on the determination that it represented the artist's drawing style, which clearly would not apply to a photograph.

There's a very strong presumption against the use of nonfree images in BLP infoboxes (which are typically used solely as identifying images); I'd be extremely surprised by a counterexample (for a photograph) which has been supported by consensus. Not even the iconic image of Twiggy has done so. This and similar Ditko photos have been available online in various places for several years, at least since 2006; there are good policy reasons keeping them out of the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Kardashian mold"

Curious, what did you mean by "Kardashian mold" at the AFD for the community college professor? None of the names at Kardashian seem to me to make sense, and I strongly suspect that you're not referring to Kardash. Please either reply at my talk or leave a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Shilpa Shetty, you may be blocked from editing. Remember, if you disagree about the inclusion of sourced content for any other reason, use the talk page and discuss its redundancy. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Go away. It's editing misbehavior to post notices like this on the page of any editor who removes BLP violations or otherwise enforces sourcing policy who cleans up pages laced with tabloid claptrap. You know better than this. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Well Times of India generally is regarded as one of the more reputable Indian sources. I agree that the mafia coverage was excessive but I think it is worthy of mentioning briefly. For me atleast if an issue has been widely covered in reliable sources then that makes it worthy of inclusion, otherwise its seems like censorship. Personally I think the BLP issue at times can be overexaggerated because if claims are supported with multiple sources then we can't really be to blame for it. You have a point though about excess tabloid fodder, but in this case I wouldn't exactly call it that. I mean I see a lot of real crap in articles about some celebrities dog and some people think its notable!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

You're really beginning to piss me off with your ridiculous BLP "gossip" "tabloid" claims. Personal life and dating somebody for 4 years for instance is perfectly relevant. Especially when they are referenced to reliable sources. Why don't you do something useful for a change? Its damaging actually what you are doing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Note

This time the case has gone in your favour, as I myself actually don't see the neccessity of the mafia section and have no intentions of protecting it. Having said that, your conduct has been continuously disruptive on Wikipedia. You always remove sourced info, which is often essential. You will have to learn to use the talk page when necessary. I see you have once been blocked already for disruptive editing. Next time I see something as inappropriate as I've seen so far, your case will be taken to WP:Arbitration, where a full report of your history and conduct will be filed. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Eugene Balabin

Hey! Did you actually find the article on another Wiki or did you base your argument on the concept of notability via other Wikis? I can't find it anywhere but I'm assuming it's on Russian Wikipedia and the different alphabet is just throwing me off the scent. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument has nothing to do with other wikis. The cited Catholic Encyclopedia is a well-known reference work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I thought by saying Speedy Keep and that you agreed with him meant that you shared his argument which was that because it's notable on another Wiki, it's notable here. I'm sure you can imagine my confusion.

You seem to know more about the Catholic Encyclopedia than me. Is it important enough that if it finds a subject notable, it's notable here? I would certainly think it's a reliable source but it's a single source so I'm not sure that it fully satisfies WP:GNG unless it's significantly more important than your average reliable source. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, he doesn't seem to be in it. Can you verify that he is? I left a message in the AfD. We should probably continue discussion there. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Poonam Pandey

Can you explain how the line "biggest hoax of recent times" an exaggeration of cited source? Please note that the line has been taken from the source itself with no exaggeration/addition/modification done by me. Boolyme बूलीमी ^{Chat बोलो!!} 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Because that's not what the source said. It said "may be," not is. The comment was journalistic hyperbole, and not worth encyclopedic notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Pandora Peaks

My edits, stating the model’s real name Stephanie Schick were undone with comment “unsourced at best…”. The real name, however, is true fact and can be found, for instance, on the IMDB or is stated on other language WP, see Pandora Peaks. What is required to validate my edits? — Pendethan (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

A sourse meeting the requirements of WP:RS and WP:BLP. Neither IMDB nor other-language wikipedias meet those requirements. And, of course, being credited under one name in a film doesn't demonstrate that that's the subject real name. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

- This is funny that someone like this has a Wikipedia article. Just wanted to add my 2 cents! :) - Marty2Hotty (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

About your edition in the Thore Schölermann article.

I was taken by surprise about your removal of the information about his relationship with Jana Julie Kilka from the "Personal life" section, labeling it as "outdated gossip" and saying that it didn't have significance.

What criterion should we use for including something under "Personal life"? Because I think a personal relationship is way more relevant that his childhood pets (something that you kept on your edition), and I think the sources were better than the youtube videos used as sources for the pet facts.

And well, being an actor, and being about who he is dating, it seems logical that most, if not all, the sources that refer to this are gonna be tabloids. What kind of sources should we use for it not to be qualifiable as gossip?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Superhero (talk • contribs) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy

- Hello, you have been helpful in the past. I have a question and worked on creating the Irvine Welsh's Ecstasy article. It's a film but I'm not quite sure how to upload a low resolution photo. The photo is available on the movie's Facebook page and I reduced the quality significantly: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/4289/ecstasy7.jpg - I would like to have this as the poster on the page. I went to Partition (2007 film)'s picture page and it shows that pictures that are low resolution for movies can be added on. I was wondering if you can upload it and attach it on the page. Thanks again for your help. - Marty2Hotty (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

- I was able to upload the photo through the help pages. I used a poster, which I read, meets the Wikipedia guidelines for "non-free" - commercial posters or something to that extent. Learning something new everyday! - Marty2Hotty (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Principal

To: Hullabalooo Wolfowitz

Re: Victoria Principal

I was surprised that you edited out all information about Victoria Principal's marriage to Harry Glassman. On her Wiki page, all it states is that she remarried in 1985 and divorced in 2006.

I don't know why she [or you] for that matter are trying to downplay the fact that she was married to one of Beverly Hill's most noted plastic surgeons but you deleted that.

As for his arrest for domestic violence, see the following links:

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0066117/

http://tv.yahoo.com/victoria-principal/contributor/840865/bio

I included in my edit that charges were never filed by her and that she vehemently denied any allegations of spousal abuse. I didn't even include the fact that she was admitted to Cedars-Sinai after his arrest.

I also have the Redbook Magazine wherein she states that she and Glassman decided not to have children as it would mar her body contradicted by her statements in a Lifetime Intimate Portrait where she says that she was unable to have children -- both of which were duly referenced in my edit.

You wrote in undoing these edits: lacks references required for content of this sort in living person's biography; Undid revision 457429063 by Lisa kristin1 (talk)) (undo)

Why undo edits that were perfectly valid and you could have checked out for yourself? I didn't write one thing that was not true about Ms. Principal and you had no business removing it.

lisakristin1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa kristin1 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk:Nica Noelle#Personal life.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring

• Your recent behavior is being discussed here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Status update/storm

Due to the imminent arrival of the wast coast snowstorm, I am likely to be unavailable for some period of time. My ISP service has already been interrupted several times this afternoon (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 we clear out the fallen trees, etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiMedal for Janitorial Services

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		I hereby award you the WikiMedal for Janitorial Services for continually cleaning out the nonsense clogging the gutters. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, on an unrelated note, I would kindly propose that you might want to do some archiving of your talk page. Cheers again! bd2412 T 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Love

Courtney Love has been going through a lengthy Good Article review, and is now close to being listed. There now needs to be a bit of tidying up done - trimming some excessive detail, and a bit of copy-editing, as well as building up the lead a bit more. This is one of the top viewed articles on Wikipedia and is on an important yet complex subject. Any assistance, even if only to proof read one of the sections, would be much appreciated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhonda Rydell

I have noticed you deleted the page on Rhonda Rydell. Beside having not being informed (according to normal procedure in Wiki) of the deletion, I was not able to take part to the discussion. IMHO motivation appears somehow arguable: despite having only 2 movies and few appearance I recall (and it is in my user page) Jimbo's idea of wikipedia: free access to information, and I might agree that my article on Albiruni or on other economic topics are much more interesting and "encyclopedic". again IMHO the motivations adduced apprear not to be solid ground as principle for deletion. What I mean is that I have found other 30+ wiki-pages of biographies with less than Rhonda Rydell's content and references. As I did not have been informed in the deletion procedure, can I ask you to review your decision according to [Wikipedia:DRV] wiki deletion review procedure? She has over 1.4 million pages linking to her, despite she retired in 1998, she has an interesting story behind. She is not famous for the Confidence Man (very few know about this) , but she was well know before. Cheers The Lone Ranger^{Hit me with a good one!} 12:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Noel Ashman

I had previously declined a G4 speedy. Obviously we disagree over whether it has been changed enough. I said in the edit summary I would send it to AfD, but I think it would be singularly awkward for I will probably want to support keeping on the basis of the club ownership. Perhaps you should do the AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding speedy decline of Habib Construction Services Pakistan

This article is a completely an advert and "unsalvageably promotional". The proof of it is another article made in sep 2011 which was speedily deleted by Fastily under G11--Habib Construction Services Pvt. Ltd..The same article has been copy pasted and used here with minor changes. See] this for the page on 20 sep 2011. Moreover it has a lack of notability because it finds no mention in news articles,see this.Do pardon my audacity. Vivekananda De--tAlK 03:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I obviously disagree; whatever promotional content there might be can be addressed by ordinary editing. If you're convinced the subject isn't notable, nominate the article for the AFD process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hullaballoo's exactly right on this one. If nothing else, the first sentence wasn't spam, and even if everything else was removed would've been enough to stop any other type of speedy. I've gone ahead and done some quick editing to the page to fix the major advertising concerns, even though it's likely to be deleted at AfD. Cheers, both of you. lifebaka++ 05:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

==Sockpuppetry case==

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Gay Donor Ban

Please stop deleting perfectly legitimate edits I have made on the FDA and IBTS pages. Everything I have posted is referenced and is certainly not "axe grinding" as you dismissively claim. The ban on gay and bisexual men donating blood in these countries is a matter of great controversy and the agencies concerned have been heavily criticised for following such policies. It's only right then that this should be recorded on the pages concerned, and just because you may approve of the bans or believe they should not be controversial does not alter this reality. I believe you are being deliberately disruptive, having twice deleted my edits. PinkPolitico80 (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC) PinkPolitico80

I have left a welcome message on this new editor's talk page. PinkPolitico80, please do not try to read another editor's mind. You have no idea what this editor believes about the topic in question. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz is acting to ensure that these article are written from the neutral point of view. It is up to you to propose and discuss potentially controversial changes on these article's talk pages, and to gain consensus before adding such material. These additions are controversial by definition because at least two editors disagree with you. So don't get into a fight - instead discuss, debate and seek consensus. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed--Cullen is, as usual, right. But Hullaballoo, your attention is requested at Talk:Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration#Gay_Donor_Ban (by way of ANI). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

C Love

Hi , we you please give some feedback at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Amy Daly - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Shlomo Sand

Only warning. Cease defending anti-Semites, or you will be punished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needback2 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

Just a short note from a totally uninvolved editor (I'm not voting here and have no history with either the candidate or with you). I think you've gone over the borderline of civil/uncivil; I appreciate the points you're trying to make, but the language in which you're making them is too strongly confrontational. Maybe you had a particularly bad day, but perhaps an apology for some of your word / phrase choices might be in order. Things like "That's some of the most shameless and awful wikilawyering I've ever seen", and "One was so plainly a porn source that the most blithering of idiots could not have mistaken it." It's going too far to say that an editor is worse than "the most blithering of idiots". I'm sure a couple of words of apology would be in order. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Linking MQS' RFA with an alleged child rapist by referencing them in this discussion is so unacceptable I can't really comprehend what you were thinking. This is so unlike you that I'd like to request you to step back and take a break from the RFA or at least carefully consider your actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Assuming the best of intentions, I think that was probably to show how easy it is to go horribly wrong with a news story about someone with the same name. Having said that, this example was certainly too extreme. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my purpose, exactly. My statement noted that such a link was not appropriate to use in a substantive discussion, but that Mr. Schmidt claimed it was appropriate to bring such links to the community's attention based only on similarity of names and search engine results, without even attempting to ensure that the person involved was correctly identified. Before making the statement, I'd looked over WP:DBTF, an essay linked from WP:Notability (people), which presents similarly misassociated sources to make the same point I made in the Schmidt RFA. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that one - I was already 99.9% sure of it, anyway, but thanks. On the whole, though, do you think you could work on being a little bit less angry in your posts? Part of the problems that follow on from such anger is that people focus on the tone, and not the content and intent, so may well miss / dismiss any valid concerns you have simply because it's uncomfortable to read such anger. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thank you for your partcipation at my recent successful RFA. In addressing your concerns, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, will expand my efforts to include the more mundane areas, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. We may cross paths at AFD discussions in the future... sometimes in agreement about a keep or a delete, and sometimes not... but as it is inappropriate, I will never use the mop to close any where we both have commented, I will respect consensus, and I will avoid closing any if consensus one way or t'other is not quite clear. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ankit Fadia

The cornerstone of Ankit Fadia's career was that at age 16 the U.S. Government asked him to decrypt a steganographic message from Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks, no one has collaborated this statement, the branch of the U.S. Government that does code cracking is the National Security Agency, they are the largest employer of mathematicians in the United States, and they are one of the largest consumers of electricity in Maryland, likely to run their acres of code cracking supercomputers, they don't need to call 16 year old foreign national to break messages from Al Qaeda.

There has been no confirmation that Al Qaeda has used steganography as that would confirm sources and techniques of intelligence gathering, the only reporter that wrote something about Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and steganography was Jack Kelley of USA Today who was let go for fictionalizing his stories. Now when you take the story from MiD Day, which was in both their print and online editions, and posted on Ankit Fadia's website, Fadia mentions that "The agencies had tracked some emails where few people were frequently exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne They had used technography to send messages." While MiD Day likely transcribed technography as Steganography this would have been impossible in the days or even months after the 9/11 attacks as Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002.

There is no computer security technology called technography but steganography which allows users to hide messages in pictures, video and sound files. News reports that Fadia has been quoted in over the years have him deciphering this message from Osama bin Laden's men in the months after 9/11, a few source this as happening in November 2001, and now he's saying that these groups were exchanging photographs of Canadian rockstar Avril Lavigne in November 2001 when Avril Lavigne's debut album Let Go was released on June 4, 2002. I am not going to say this whole story is a lie, but given that he's repeated this story over and over again, adding new things here, how does this not qualify as biographical information when its published online and the dates don't mesh.

From his own website - http://www.ankitfadia.in/who_is_ankit_fadia.html - In November 2001, Fadia was consulted by a classified intelligence agency for breaking an encrypted message sent by one of Osama Bin Laden's men.

Cracking the Code - http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/youth/article49478.ece?homepage=true - after the September 11 attacks, the U.S Government found some encrypted mails. The mails apparently had only pictures and no text accompanying them. “The pictures followed the steganography pattern where in photographs with embedded messages are used. I gave a few suggestions on decoding them. It was exciting as I was only 16 then. They usually never give any feedback as it is classified information but since I received a few projects even after that I feel I have been of use at some level,” smiles the 24-year-old.

Don't you find it the least bit odd about Fadia mentioning Avril Lavigne pictures in this story? Doesn't this qualify in the same league as having the second best hacking site by the FBI when there has never been any list to that effect?

Please reconsider the undid with this information.

Thanks!

Shawn Fynn (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a BLP, and requires reliably sourced information rather than original research or analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Moyles

Instead of repeatedly removing long standing and cited content, could please explain your actions on the talk page. You may have a point, but declaring something as "not legitimate" really doesn't explain anything and sounds like just an opinion. Regardless of whether it was a 'legitimate' award, or not, it would seem to me that Stonewall's response to Moyles in regard to the events being discussed are notable and relevant. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I've already said, this was covered on BLPN; invective pretending to be an award shouldn't be presented as one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Where on BLPN? Your refusal to explain properly or discuss your edit isn't helping anyone. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reinstating contentious content to a BLP without consensus, after it's been removed by more editors than the number who support it, is impermissible edit warring. The burden of persuasion is on your side, and your failure to bother to look through multiple relevant discussions won't excuse your violations, nor will repeated talk page natterings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea how many editors support its retention because you have totally failed to discuss the issue. Recent edits demonstrate it being re-added by a number of editors after its removal without discussion. Vague reference to "BLPN" is completely inadequate and your dismissal of establishing talk page consensus as "natterings" is a very worrying disregard for core policy for an experienced editor. It is you who wish to remove this long-standing content, it is you who should properly explain what you are doing and why. Hurling 3RR warnings at other editors simply because you can't be bothered with "natterings" is not civil behaviour and not building consensus.

I ask you again, where on BLPN is your edit supported as part of WP:BLP? Where is it shown that this is "invective pretending to be an award"? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please revert your change to the Chris Moyles article and explain your actions on the talk page. Edit warring and ignoring other editors is a violation of Wikipedia policy on establishing consensus. Please stop this and discuss. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for removing the "attack" award from the appropriate BLP articles. Wasn't there something similar to this at the Sean Hannity BLP page about adding misinformer of the year award to his bio? I fully support your efforts and applaud your fairness. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial tyranny (2nd nomination)

Please take a second look at this discussion. Some additional avenues of resolution have been proposed, but the discussion is currently at a loggerhead. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk:Lily Cade#2012 award nomination.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 19:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Iris Robinson

Do not remove material under a misleading edit summary. You know well that the BLPN agreed that content could be decided on an article by article basis and certainly not removed across all articles as you claim. Discuss it on the talk page and if you use misleading edit summaries again I will ask for your behaviour to be examined. Your action on the Iris Robinson article does you no credit. Leaky Caldron 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't post threats based on misleading claims on my talk page, or anybody else's. It's clear the BLPN discussion does not support adding such disputed and derisive material to a BLP without consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Leaky Caldron 00:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop posting phony warnings. Removal of content that's not compliant with WP:BLP is exempt from from 3RR limits, and adding back contentious, disputed material to BLPs without consensus support is a BLP violation. The relevant BLPN discussion made evident the disputed content does not have consensus support. And at the previous related edit warring complaint, which I filed, your argument was rejected. Your behavior amounts to deliberate disruption to evade the requirements of WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal without consensus

Regarding this edit. You know very well that no consensus has been reached for the removal of this, both on this article and in BLPN generally. Despite being urged to, you have also declined to join the discussion regarding it on the article talk page. Your continued insistence on removing, against consensus, is therefore disruptive and your edit summaries are at best deliberately misleading. Consensus is against you on this matter. I ask you to accept this rather than continued edit warring. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't post deceptive nonsense and phony warnings on my talk page or anybody else's. WP:BLP stands against including such disputed, contentious content in articles about living persons without consensus support; the burden of proof is on those seeking inclusion, not those supporting its removal. Forking discussion to individual talk pages just because the general discussion doesn't go your way and demanding that users who disagree with you engage in repetitive debates is simply disruption, not good faith editing. And the lengthy and extensive BLPM discussions make quite evident that removal of the disputed content wasn't against consensus. You also know perfectly well that your complaint was not sustained when I posted a 3RR/edit warring notice related to this issue. If anybody's being "deliberately misleading" here, it's you. There's nothing resembling a consensus supporting your argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the BLPN discussion is wholly incorrect. Make the move on Iris Robinson without Talk Page discussion and it's straight to 3RR and you don't have a leg to stand on. Leaky Caldron 01:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just a deliberate misstatement of fact, and you know it. The BLPN discussion on the Stonewall mock-awards was lengthy and extensive, you participated in it, and it rather evidently produced no consensus support for the disputed, contentious content you insist on adding to a BLP. It's hard to see your claim otherwise as anything but deliberate dishonesty. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe you are correct. 6 editors agreed that a case could be made in individual articles, if not across all of them. You know where the talk page is if you want to enter into a proper policy based discussion. Also, I will not tolerate further accusations of dishonesty, which I consider to be a WP:NPA violation. Leaky Caldron 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus for retention established, and this must be evident to an old stager like yourself. You're engaged in vandalism. Please desist. --82.41.22.244 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, I reinstated mention of the "award" simply because I found that it was also reported in the Guardian. I don't understand what the controversy is. The paragraph talks about Stonewall and their criticism toward Moyles and it's unfit to also mention they gave him a mock award when it's reported by reliable sources? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. I don't like requesting blocks on genuine editors, but your behaviour is disruptive.

• You have now reverted your removal of long-term cited material on Chris Moyles 12 times, and it has been repeatedly reverted by others.
• You have reverted it three times in the last 12 hours.
• You first began your edits by claiming a consensus from a discussion that simply did not exist.
• After it was discussed, you now claim consensus doesn't exist because you don't agree with it.
• You refuse to discuss your edits on the talk page, and are pursuing a blanket policy that found no support on BLPN.
• Your interpretation of discussions are uniquely your own and at odds with everyone else.

People have been very patient with you. Edit Chris Moyles once more in this manner without consensus and I will request you are blocked. For everyone's benefit, please, accept that consensus is against you on this one and move on. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 02:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Kat Von D

This is a neutral notice of an RfC for a page on which you have been an editor. If you wish to participate, the discussion is taking place here. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

A request for comments has been opened on administrator User:Fæ. You are being notified due to your prior participation in ANI, RfA, or RfC discussions regarding this user. Thank you, MadmanBot (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Veronika Zemanová

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. A user has contested the deletion of Veronika Zemanová on my talk page. Since you nominated the page for deletion, your input would be appreciated. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 10:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"nonfree images used in discography"

I noticed you removed some pics from Colton Ford with the above edit summary. I couldn't care less whether they are there or not, but was curious as to why use would be justified on a standalone page but not as part of merged discography. (Those images got there because articles on the individuals were merged away.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Because that's what WP:NFC says. It's not the practice I'd prefer, but it enjoys pretty clear consensus support. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I see that line in NFC now. On a completely unrelated matter, it would be great if you could archive this page. (I'm sure I'm not the first to request this.) It took me a couple tries to get this page to load fully even on a high speed connection due to its huge size. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

inre this discussion

While I do appreciate that as the verifiable directorial debut of a notable person this article meets a criteria of WP:NF... and that it does have coverage... I agree that its current tone is problematic. And while often adressable, I ask that you take a look at this edit and understand that I agreee that a "redirect" is pretty much okay for now just so long as there is no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I hardly think that inserting paraphrases from a press release into an article, as you did here, is anything resembling appropriate editing. Second, your distortion of NFILM, removing the essential qualifying language "and is a major part of his/her career," is inconsistent with both policy in general and well-established community practice regarding this genre. And you didn't even represent your (inadequate) sources accurately, since none of them say that Part 2 has been released yet (a claim that not even the studio's own website doesn't seem to make). Slipshod all the way around. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Demi Moore

Hi, Hulla. I appreciate very much you fighting the tabloid-ery there. On a separate subject, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Demi Moore about her parents' birth certificate, and I hope you'll join. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at Talk:Ender's_Game_(short_story)#Removal_of_File:AUG_1977_ASF.jpg.
Message added 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at An Illusive Man's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Removing non-free image from Mike Branson

Why did you remove File:Mike branson.jpg? I know he is still a living person, but he has been inactive since 1998 or 1999. Per WP:NFC#UUI, he retired from porno business. --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

For exactly the reason stated in my edit summary: "nonfree image used as general illustration in BLP." The active/inactive distinction in WP:NFC#UUI expressly applies only to "groups." The idea that exceptions should be made for retired porn performers was discussed extensively and again rejected not too long ago (even in the case of Japanese performers, where national privacy laws might present an additional difficulty in acquiring free images). Policy and consensus are quite clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What about "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance"? And where is that discussion? --George Ho (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The "earlier visual appearance" exception is extremely narrow, rarely allowed, and needs to be supported by well-sourced commentary. For an example of the issue (some of which was conducted on file talk pages, which disappeared when the nonfree files were deleted), see [17]. Also see several discussions at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 47. It was a heated discussion over about a dozen articles, and its conclusion is reflected in the fact that nonfree images have been removed from virtually all porn performer BLPs; I don't know of any exceptions, although one or two might have slipped through. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:CQ#File:Mike branson.jpg for another discussion about this image. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Margaret Tyzack CBE 2010.jpg

Should I contest the "speedy" tag that you put? I have added "non-free fair use in" tag. Why was this tagged? --George Ho (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AFD issue

Yes, I'm aware that it is fowled up, and not to be rude, but it doesn't really help the predicament.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, if you just read the directions at WP:AFD, you'd learn how to do it correctly. It's also not helpful to leave the wrong AFD discussion in the log indefinitely; once you saw it was messed up, you should have removed it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for the original AFD. That one is from 2006. So, I'm not sure how to clear out logs and whatnot. All I know is that it was passed for deletion at that time. Please pardon me for not being a Wikipedia master. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd just read the directions, you'd be able to fix this by now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for ur contributions but it is barring useful resources about Sanaya_Irani

dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz regards and love

You are a senior than me in Wikipedia but You also have certain limitations and I am sorry to say that yopu are not and Indian so You don't even Indian celebs . Its a major fact of her Biography and changes are really very sad because you are barring useful information to the page viewers of page Sanaya_Irani .

We know the small to small details about her (Sanaya_Irani) and I had given the informations according to unbiased and resourceful materials. I am again edting the page and please do reply me in this and please do understand to which country you velongs i can't edit that country's celebrity page and as i do not know i didn't seen her work

so please understand the aspects of the page and i will provide all references to the indian cites of Sanaya_Irani.

again respect to you and your contributions

Saurabh kumar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabhkr wiki (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling

Just because I overturned your wrong and unhelpful tag bomb at Chelsea Charms doesn't mean you should try to gut every edit I ever made. That's a little crazy, and you should just stop now. NewExLionTamer (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Abusive sock at work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Just examining your edits tells me a great deal. Most of your "removal of trivia" is reverted by other editors. The fact that this is so would indicate few people agree with your extreme views on personal life information. You have a point about tabloid fodder about one night stands, flings etc but long term relationships which are widely covered in rleiable sources like BBC etc are most certainly encyclopedic and meet guidelines. In fact some relationships are so well known that it would be censorship to not even mention them. If you continue to operate in this way I will consider opening an investigation and RFC investigating your disruption. There's clearly a difference between removing unsourced tabloid fodder and removing any mention of personal relationships which is sourced like you do. Wikipedia is not censored, but your views are so extreme that you even harsher than a typical censor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Linda Ronstadt

Your views are extreme, orthodox and trolling. Have to agree with many of the above commentators. Stop trolling. Continue to overturn what you think is wrong is not really an intelligent way to operate any encyclopedic community, such as wikipedia. Seeing from history,you have a history of being blocked and called out. You make the Wikipedia community unpleasant and encourage fighting.

Your recent editing history at Linda Ronstadt shows that you have a history of editing and removing content with any discussion. I am not claiming the images "free content". Instead of reverting and editing work you should have and please consider using the article's talk pagebefore removing other people's work under your claim of removal of copyright violations. All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. If you would have taken the time to click on the photos itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007 Sharkentile (talk) 8:49, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright/NFCC violations, including the use of nonfree content without article-specific NFCC rationales, is subject to immediate removal. Comments like "it's free content"[18] and "prove no valid NFCC rationale"[19] are completely inappropriate and so incompatible with NFCC policy as to call wither competence or your good faith into question. As does your departure from civility policy here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice try but drop the THE editing commentS you continue to reference are irrelevant to FACT. Fact is, READ THE PHOTO TEMPLATES

All photos that you have elected to delete without discussion have Non-free content criteria compliance rationale. CLICK ON THE PHOTOS itself and read the template it was fairly obvious the NFCC rationale are there and many have been there since 2007. That is FACT. Sharkentile (talk) 9:19, Sharkentile April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule and edit-warring under colour of WP:NFCC, as you did at Linda Ronstadt. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tristessa (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is an unvalid block as defending the NFCC is an exemption from the 3RR. This block should be lifted immediately. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The exemption doesn't apply in this case, as this is clearly a dispute between the two users regarding questionable content. In contrast, WP:3RRNO#3RR_exemptions requires that the content be "unquestionably" a violation of the NFCC criteria, and I believe this is not satisfied by the editing behaviour. Of course, if you consider I'm incorrect, I'm always open to a second opinion. --Tristessa (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz, I don't see how the inclusion of album images in the artist article is a reasonable interpretation of our NFCC criteria. 28bytes (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

NFCC dispute on Linda Ronstadt

I have closed the AN/I thread regarding your NFCC dispute, having blocked you both for 24 hours for having violated the three-revert rule. Please read my closing comments. I hope you will resolve this dispute through discussion rather than repeated reversion in future. After your block expires, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help to settle this between you. --Tristessa (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As the unblock request I am working on will establish in detail, I did not violate 3RR. The fourth removal of the disputed content in the last 24 hours was performed by User:Dr. Blofeld [20]. I reverted only three times, expressly citing NFCC/copyright concerns, which are a solidly-recognized exception to the 3RR limit, and declared a good-faith reliance on that exception. I have never seen an editor blocked in these circumstances, and in previous disputes of this sort my reliance on that exception has been sustained. If you had discussed this with me prior to blocking, I would also have pointed out to you that I had intentionally stopped short of breaking the 3RR rule and brought the matter to ANI, where I pointed out the clear requirement stated in NFCC policy that these images be removed. At this point, I believe that every other outside commenter has agreed with my point about the requirements of WP:NFCCE. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, and on the basis of your explanation (and comments from others), I agree with you. I apologise for the error and will unblock you. That said, could I please ask you to take this to discussion in future rather than reverting? Cheers, --Tristessa (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (especially pointing to previous community discussions) would help the other user understand, but no, he shouldnt leave those images in the article. Album covers in discographies and artist pages were literally the canonical example of the abuse we were trying to correct when the community tightened up NFCC enforcement a few years back. They were specifically called out as what not to do. -- ۩ Mask 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Pro forma request. While Tristessa has unblocked, per the discussion above, an autoblock still remains in effect. With the autobloack functioning, I can't post to Tristesse's talk page. I'd prefer not to use the autoblock-specific template here due to a rather odd event that occurred after my IP address was posted publicly. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Autoblock cleared. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nikolai Kurbatov

Hi. It is possible to save the page "Nikolai Kurbatov"? In addition to links to livejournal, there is reference to kinopoisk.ru, rusarticles.com, pstu.ru, imdb.com, facebook.com, kinoafisha.net, infomaniya.ru ... Thanks, N-k90 (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if it could survive in its current form. Most of the sources aren't reliable enough under WP:RS and WP:BLP, which it would be helpful for you to review. The article also appears to be almost entirely copied from the "rudata" page, which appears to be a wiki, and that page carries a copyright notice that doesn't, at least in the Google translation, appear to clearly offer a Wikipedia=compatible license. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. When you recently edited Dancing Tonight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inside Out (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You reinserted contentious material in a BLP

Please self revert in article Yoko Ono. The removal was explained and is further explained on the talk page. 174.255.112.150 (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletions of Getty Images

I'm not sure what you're getting at with these. Why does copyright owned by Getty Images matter? The whole point of non-free images is that permission of the copyright holder is irrelevant and unneeded. Thus saying "expressly identified as Getty Images photo" is a pointless non-rationale. If being a Getty images photo disqualifies a picture from fair use, I wouldn't have uploaded it, since as noted I did in fact "expressly identify" the copyright holder, as image uploaders should always do. Can you explain your rationale here? SnowFire (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per F7, "Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary, are considered an invalid claim of fair use and fail the strict requirements of WP:NFCC; and may be deleted immediately." (emphasis in original) Per WP:NFC#UUI #7, "A photo from a press or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article" is an "unacceptable use". Wp:NFCC, which is policy, incorporates the F7 criteria by reference. Note, for example, the final comment in this recent discussion[21], representing the closer's rationale. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I looked more closely at criteria F7 which you linked to. The Dominque Strauss-Kahn image you speedy'd does in fact have "critical commentary" on the image, but it seems like my dispute is with that part of the non-free content criteria, not you. I find it utterly bizarre that Wikipedia should treat images from Getty differently from copyrighted images from an independent photographer. (And edit conflict, yeah, you posted the same thing. I still disagree but I understand your rationale at least now. Is there any explanation *why* listed anywhere?) SnowFire (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume it's because Getty is actively marketing the images for online use, and that posting them on one of the most visible websites in the world interferes with their licensing opportunities. By their standard licensing rates, long-term use on Wikipedia would typically run to several thousand USD per image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should just open a thread at the talk page for all that I fear going to Wikipedia policy talk pages. That said, just to straighten things up on good faith... the "or photo agency" clause to the critiera you linked to was added after the Nico Smith photo was uploaded (20 June 2011. So I was pretty much in the right at the time. I can't find any discussion on the policy talk page around that time, either ([22]). This is all the more reason to go slow - I'm not really a fan of using speedy deletion to enforce this. SnowFire (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I posted my thoughts on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content if you're interested. SnowFire (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have posted the sourced commentary on the image itself at the file talk page, with appropriate emphasis, in case you were unable to locate it in the article. Since it is the subject of sourced commentary, at least in Perp walk, I respectfully request you either withdraw your speedy nom entirely as it is clearly invalid, or open another FfD if you believe it is because it is pretty obvious there would be a difference of opinion, as there has been on two previous occasions. Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Per my comments on the file talk page, I decline to remove the speedy. None of the sourced commentary refers specifically to the disputed image, but to all images of the perp walk. Given the large number of available images, there is no reason to create an exception to our policy/practice concerning such images. The prior discussions did not address this NFCC issue, so the speedy proposal should be reviewed by an uninvolved admin. I do expect further discussion, either at FFD or DRV, but I think the principle should be clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As a purely procedural note... the point of speedy deletions are to quickly delete items about which there is no discussion expected (such as requests from the uploader), or which are the result of vandalism / trolling / clueless newbies / etc. It is always valid to make an XfD even for "speedyable" reasons. If there's a good faith discussion at all, then it probably can go to XfD. SnowFire (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at File talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have new messages at File talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn perp walk.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling

This user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz completely trolled this article Choky Ice Don't know what you have against this actor, but I won't allow your abusive trolling and editing. That article is perfectly sourced. STOP IT!(talk) 15:31, 1 April 2012 ] 11:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey08 (talk • contribs)

I suggest you read WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NFCC, as well as WP:NPOV. It's utterly ridiculous to describe a BLP including a large number of unreferenced quotes attributed to the article subject as "perfectly sourced". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

career: it states his career, his year in the biz etc. How is that not well sourced? http://www.budapestsun.com/news/51352

playgirl: it states he was in playgirl, and his ranking and issues, date year etc. how is that now well sourced? http://www.smutjunkies.com/profiles/c/o_stars/Csoky/

Image: Porn actor ((Choky Ice)) Pictorial, September 1999 issue of Playgirl magazine.jpg It gives credit to playgirl, purpose of the image, date year, how is that not well sourced?--LowKey08 (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Smutjunkies" is not a reliable source for a BLP. You must have an independent, reliable source demonstrating that the model who used one name thirteen years ago is the same person as the porn performer using a different name today. Just looking similar isn't enough. The quotations attributed to the performer are completely unreferenced. The "career" section was cut-and pasted from a copyrighted source, which violates Wikipedia's copyright policies, and a seven-year-old interview was presented as current information. You cannot add such a nonfree/copyrighted imagE to a Wikipedia BLP except in unusual circumstances; using one just to identify the article subject or show what he looks like is strictly against policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC enforcement

I noticed that you removed an image from the article on Alice Pollitt, indirectly citing WP:NFC#UUI §8. After that, the image was re-added by a different user. If you feel that an article fails WP:NFCC for some reason, wouldn't it be better to take the image to FfD instead? That way, you'd avoid having an edit war in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Chillenden Windmill

I've partly reverted your removal of images. I agree that the gallery should have gone, but there were two NFFU images in the article too, which I've restored. They are significant enough to justify their inclusion. Raised at talk page. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why have you restored the gallery and removed the two non-free images without responding to my rationale on the talk page. Please revert or explain. Mjroots (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Because galleries of free images are generally allowed; galleries of nonfree images are generally not allowed (WP:NFG), and there was no significant text relating to the nonfree images justifying their inclusion per WP:NFCC #8. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

"contradicts sourced text"

[23]: Unsourced, yes, that it is. But just out of curiosity I want to ask: Where does it contradict sourced text? (It happens to be correct, btw.) --Rosenzweig (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That was no rhetorical question, I'm really interested in where you see contadictions. --Rosenzweig (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Still no answer? You are quite rude. --Rosenzweig (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Paul Donahue, Jr.

Thanks; I couldn't see enough to tell if it supported WP:N or not. NYT obits generally seem to, and I hadn't seen it in the article or discussion. Dru of Id (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield redirects

The reason I closed as keep when there were 2 delete votes and only one keep is that RfD is not a vote. There were only two arguments to evaluate, the first was that these are "useless and superfluous" that are implausible search terms. The other was that per various cited policies, redirects are not only search terms and that redirects of this nature are useful and thus supported by policy and precedent, completely rebutting the assertion in the first argument. The latter argument was clearly the stronger, particularly with reference to WP:R#KEEP point 5 and WP:CHEAP. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines cited were used correctly and a plausible use for the redirects was given. In the context of redirects, "it's useful" is a very significantly stronger argument than "they create clutter". Take it to DRV by all means, but I stand by my closure. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Taylor Swift relationships

Hi, you've made a few edits to the Taylor Swift relationship section because of "routine celebrity journalism misrepresenting media speculation as the article subject's statements". Would you please elaborate on that, please? Swift is well-known for writing about these men. They deserve a mention because they are so connected with her work. Swift writes 'codes' in her album liner notes and she identified the Jonas, Mayer and Lautner songs. You deleted the Gyllenhaal paragraph completely, despite Swift telling Vogue directly that her fourth album will be about that relationship. Thanks Popeye191 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What needs elaboration? You read the cited source, as I did before making the edits in question, you see that Swift made broad/ambiguous comments that a reporter then speculates about. That's not an acceptable source under WP:BLP for the claims made in the article, which are presented as factual. Vogue isn't even cited in any of the supposedly relevant references. And since that fourth album doesn't exist right now, lyric analysis seems a particularly vapid enterprise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

PORNBIO

Since you've participated in the discussion about WP:PORNBIO, I am notifying you of my proposal tightening the criteria that you may wish to weigh in on at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Arbitrary_break:_discussing_Morbidthought.27s_draft. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)