User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 17

Anti-transsexualism feminists

I've nominated the category "Anti-transsexualism feminists" for renaming or deletion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_1#NEW_NOMINATIONS I've only found one use of the phrase as a category of feminists outside of Wikipedia.--Nowa (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated the category for speedy deletion; it's a disparaging categorization that's incompatible with BLP sandards, and removed it from every article where the subject hasn't self-identified -- which is to say, all of them -- per consensus practice regarding categories. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Please. Stop Wikipedia:Edit warring with me. Come Talk in Category talk:Anti-transsexualism feminists. After That do what you want. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Obvious BLP violations are removed without discussion and are exempt from edit warring restrictions. At this point, multiple users oppose the existence of the category and only you support it. You need to stop. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This Category is not BLP violations. I'm not mad or new comer. It's an accusation. If you have something to say, say it in Category talk:Anti-transsexualism feminists. Don't Edit war with me. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Category now deleted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

P. Pajouhesh, please see Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Definitions and scope's section on Sensitive categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Matt Farah

I was told that Youtube and IMDB should never be used as refs and only el's, hence why they were removed. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

They are often quite lousy and unsuitable for references, but there is no absolute bar at this time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well its not as bad as some articles I've seen where people put up a BLP prod that moment (I saw one go up for a NFL player within 2 seconds that had no sources yet and were added 2 minutes later even!) The only sources I really am iffy about are ones like Facebook, Twitter, ect. aka social networks. Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

G11

Could you have another look at this edit? This was not tagged A7 but G11. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Yeach, I pulled the wrong edit summary from the dropdown. But it's not irreparably promotional,and I've cleaned it up now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reverting of Kevin Sorbo

I gave a description on the Talk-page, why I think, my edit was appropriate. The commercial was a important first step of his careerer, the Kull-movie was not.--93.111.43.22 (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, my actions the other day were out of line and I would like to apologize for the message I left you - I acted in the heat of the moment and thoroughly regret it -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, apology accepted. No worries. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back pie!

WELCOME BACK!

• Hi, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I noticed the comment you appended to your name in an AFD I had edited. Administrators are overworked volunteers. I think of them in a category with citizens who participate in local government, and church vestry members they do a lot of hard work and get a lot of grief. But there is no quesiton that, too often, they pay too much heed to aggressive complaints made by intensely partisan but highly skilled wiki-lawyers. Hang in there.13:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Prof. Dr. Amir Qayyum

The intro sums up all his experience, states that he is "Self motivated and ambitious", is a "Multi-cultural personality with understanding of many languages", has "leadership skills to effectively lead a team", is a "creative and visionary thought leader", etc. Besides that introductory paragraph, the article just is a list of his publications that looks like it is copied from his CV. I really think this is spam and would appreciate if you could have another look at this. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• It just was deleted fro another reason, so the point is moot now. Just for the record, I also just found that it was literally copied from this person's own university page, so it also was a copyvio. Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Airbiquity

Hi, the Airbiquity article was not accepted at AFC, it was simply moved to mainspace by the author in spite of multiple declines by AFC reviewers. If it really was accepted at AFC the AFC header would have been removed and the Talk page would contain at least the AFC WikiProject banner. The G11 speedy deletion criteria do not in any way refer to AFC processes anyway, so please re-evaluate the article in terms of the actual G11 criteria. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was created by User:TarynAdams and accepted by User:Bugmenn[1]. If AFC reviewers disagree about the significance of the subject, then it's generally outside the speedy range and calls for standard deletion process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugmenn is not an AFC reviewer and as I have already explained if it was really Accepted it would not still have had the AFC header and there would have been at least the AFC banner on the talk page. The edit history clearly shows that it was a plain move and not an AFC accept procedure. So I will now simply move it back to Draft-space because the move to mainspace was nt legitimate in the first place. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

AFC project practices/preferences aren't binding policy/guidelines. It's disputed enough to fall outside the speedy process. There are all sorts of legitimate ways to address the issues involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Racine carrée

Hello. It is French title so it should be under the title "Racine carrée". Eurohunter (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You may be right, but that's a content discussion, not a matter for speedy deletion. Removing the redirect wouldn't move the article to your preferred title anyway. You should start a discussion on the article talk page. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gustav Rehberger.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Civility warning

I've been guilty of incivility as well (to preempt any pot/kettle defense you might want to use), but this series of summaries is pretty damn inexcusable, and I know you've been called on this before. Regardless of where you stand on waiting periods for speedy tags (and, as far as I know, there is no consensus requiring them), the language and accusations you deployed here are completely unacceptable. Whatever rules you think you're nobly defending, be aware that you can find your editing privileges curtailed for incivility alone; and short of that, you're hurting the community every time you escalate like this. —swpb^T 14:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Can your bullshit. WP:BITE is guideline, and actively hunting for pages just created by new and inexperienced users and tag-bombing them before the article creator has a decent opportunity to even finish their first draft violates it. It is plainly abusive, and does far more harm to the community than hurting the overly tender feelings of the abusive editors who prefer to drive new editors away. You might note that the editor whose treatment you complained of lied in a relevant edit summary (he deletion tag-bombed a new article six minutes after the first edit). You might also note that he rather gratuitously and officious slammed an article subject, a respected academic, for making minor corrections/updates to his biography and removed a link to the youtube page where the article subject posted various presentations related to his academic work. Actually providing links to such educational material, of course, is far less suitable for an encyclopedia than, say, links to a celebrity's twitter feed, I guess. There may be a strong clique here that believes that accurately characterizing misbehaviour by its members is worse than the misbehaviour itself, but I'm not part of that clique and have no respect for its members and advocates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Well that's certainly not the response I was hoping to see. Maybe you need a concrete example of how your tone is counterproductive: the tone of your reply above has convinced me to start watching you closely, with an eye toward starting an AN/I if the problem does not improve; I don't think it would be hard to find support for an action. Keep in mind that your tone directly precipitated that; I hadn't been planning on any follow up before your reply. —swpb^T 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

He also forgot that the first edit was ~30 mins before my "delete bombing". Clubjustin (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

"He" forgot nothing; you're misrepresenting the history. The article was created at 10:50. You tagged it at 10:56. That's not 30 minutes, no matter how many times you say it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Burns twins

Best known for playing one role and then retiring is not really a credible claim of significance. WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", my emphasis on multiple. While the character pair they portrayed had a significant effect on pop culture, the actresses themselves only played one other minor role and then retired. Opencooper (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You said it yourself. Playing a character who "had a significant effect on pop culture" is a credible claim of significance. And a quick check of available sources shows examples of coverage over 30 years. That's plainly enought to defeat an ill-advised A7 nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really. Notability is not inherited. There have been countless actors who have played notable Shakespeare characters, but that does not make the actors themselves notable. And okay, mind sharing those before I take it to AFD? Because I wasn't able to find anything of significance. Opencooper (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You simply wrong, because it was the specific portrayal by the performers involved here that had the significant impact on popular culture. That's a claim of significance under NACTOR#3. You might begin by looking at the referenced coverage in the articles, which is the absolute minimum required by WP:BEFORE, rather than expecting me to do the work you're supposed to do when making a deletion proposal. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I did do the BEFORE which is why I said I was planning to take it to AFD when I couldn't find anything of significance. Read my comment again. The reason I asked you was in case I missed anything, not because I'm expecting you to do my dirty work. Opencooper (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Burns‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page. I note you decline toprovide any policy support for your removal of my comments from a discussion. Insisting that comments caught up in an edit conflict before a discussion is closed may not be restored is hardly consistent with practice, and your responses, particularly the edit summary "Horse hockey" are neither civil nor consistent with WP:AGF. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

HW - I don't mean to "poke my nose in here" but Marnette is right - If you commented 5 mins after the close then fair enough but you've commented a whole 20 minutes AFTER the close ..... sorry but no one gets to !vote once an AFD's closed and yes unfortunately that includes you, If you are unhappy then drag me to 3rrno however that would probably be unwise,

My best advice would be for you to kindly move and forget the AFD,

Thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, Marnette is wrong, and so are you. As I commented at their talk page, my comment was posted well before the close, and caught up in a confict with Ponyo's comment. There's no justification for removing a comment in those circumstances, and it's certainly not policy. My phone rang, I clicked "save page" and answered it, had to deal with some urgent family business, and didn't immediately see the edit conflict. So please restore my comment, which I do intend to refer to in a related discussion, and simplify that one. Also note that Manette removed the relevant comment from their talk page with a rude edit summary. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry but Davey and Marnette are correct. The post was way after the closure, if your phone interrupted you then your phone made you miss the debate. This is not personal, we close discussions and we stop allowing comments at that point. HighInBC 21:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, the comment was posted well before the close. It was caught up in an edit conflict. Could you point me to any policy or guideline that says that such a comment can't be reinstated? I've never seen this before, but I have seen the contrary, even for comments that were actually post-close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you might have intended to post before the closure, however you posted after. I get that you tried to before, but you did not succeed. It says right in the close template "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)". HighInBC 21:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Once again, where is the policy dictating this outcome? As Davey accurately points out, it's common practice to allow comments caught up in conflict with the close to be reinstated. I've been in similar circumstances a few times, myself, and no one has ever objected before. Wikipedia is not a bureaucrfacy, IAR, etc, especially since nobody seems able to point to the governing policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the wording of the closure template not clear enough for you? Listen when you are going down the road and everyone is driving right at you, it is probably you who are in the wrong lane. If you want to challenge the closure you can go to WP:DRV, if you want to refer to your comment in a later discussion the diff is still there. HighInBC 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No, and that's my point. Neither policy nor practice supports the absolutist position, and I've seen my position supported in past situations like this (though admittedly it's going to be hard for me to find the relevant diffs. Since I don't want the closure reversed, DRV is obviously not appropriate. I want the issues, which I raised in a timely fashion, to be visible. Nobody has provided a reason not to. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." And airing the relevant issues certainly improves the discussion, and there's no better place. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay it is clear we are not going to agree on this. IAR is not license to ignore what other editors are telling you, nor will it protect you from an edit warring block. If you like you can can go to ANI and complain about the removal of your comment, but I think you will just be told again what you are being told here. Your comment is in the history and you can link to it if you want. However you may not restore your comment in the closed deletion discussion. Sorry you think this is unfair, but closed means closed for everyone. HighInBC 21:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You know, almost every day I see someone appending a comment to a closed section at ANI or some other noticeboard. As Davey pointed out, editors have routinely been allowed to add edit conflicted comments first posted shoretly after the actual close of a deletion discussion. Closed doesn't mean closed for everyone, although it now seems in practice that it may mean "for everyone named Wolfowitz". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even know I was supposed to think of you differently than others. If there is some conspiracy against you I was not included. HighInBC 22:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I said they're generally allowed if it's around 5 minutes (and even then some admins can be funny over it), The point is even if you edit conflicted a second after the close you didn't then recheck ... You instead checked around 20 minutes after, The "for everyone named Wolfowitz" isn't the case at all - You could be Jimbo or even an Arbcom member - It'd still be declined regardless, Anyway what's done's done - Best we all just move on, Thanks & Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz posting personal attacks in edit summaries. Thank you. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Decline of Speedy Deletion

Greetings Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . I created those article and I can nominate them for speedy deletion as I see fit. The songs are not notable. I created those articles years ago when I didn't know about WP:NSONG. Since you reverted the speedy deletion tags I added, I will either redirect those articles to its parent article or nominate them for deletion through AFd. Those articles are not notable and they need to be deleted.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You can nominate them, but you don't WP:OWN them. Repeated discussion and consensus has established that deletion under G7 is discretionary, not a privilege held by the author. Deletion of an article which has existed for several years and has many incoming links is almost always declined. Redirection is a standard editorial choice and may be appropriate, but it remains subject to discussion and consensus, not the original author's fiat. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I never said I own them. I nominated those articles for speedy deletion and another user did the right thing by redirecting them. You, on the other hand, decided to vote speed keep despite the songs not being discussed in reliable sources. I can bet you probably didn't even do a Google search before voting.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, I agree. If you looked up the band I nominated, you wouldn't have removed the tag. Please, do a Google search before rving tags. As a long time editor, you should know this. Clubjustin (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Whatever the results of your Google search, and your confidence level in your own infallibility, there's no justification for your abusing a new editor who was making a good faith effort to write their first article. Nor, for that matter, was their any justification for your condescending, wholly-uncalled-for templating of a very-well-regarded academic who did nothing inappropriate, just made minor corrections to a recently posted bio of himself. And, if you had actually looked at the articles mentioned above, you would have seen that they were generally ineligible for G7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Elizabeth Trevannion

Greetings. What do you mean by incoming link?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Another editor got my point.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it looks more like they got mine. An "incoming link" refers to a page linked to the redirect; removing a redirect which has incoming links damages Wikipedia's utility for its readers by needlessly making navigation to related pages more difficult. In this case, it looks like the admin changed all the incoming links to point to the ultimate target before deleting, which resolves the problem. It's something you should have done before nominating. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

But there were no incoming links. That's why I cited it redirect as an unused redirect.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

When I removed the tag, there was at least one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI Closure

Hello, I'm letting you know that I have closed the discussion at ANI. The community has established consensus to place you on an interaction ban with SimonTrew. Please note that additional uncivil comments directed towards any editor may result in a block. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Ring-necked snake lifespan

You are right, it's not A3, but it's not a Wikipedia page, too, so I'm not sure it should be preserved and discussed. The next step is How manay days has a week 7.Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ross Campbell (vocal coach)

I am informing previous editors of this article that it is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Campbell (vocal coach). Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Jewel De'Nyle

You've dealt with editors trying to "out" this porn actress' name before. It's happening again. I've reverted twice, posted to the BLP Notice board and tried to engage the editor on the editor's talk page, all to no avail. Would you please look through the recent edits to this article. I'm at my wit's end. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Howard Stern Show staff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G4 (TV channel). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding reason for discussion. The thread is Incidents#User_Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz.The discussion is about the topic User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Thank you.Holanthony (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Tom Mendelsohn

Hi there – thank you for your message. I don't think I am engaged in an edit war as I only made one request for deletion and I do not reverse any of the previous edits. I opened a thread on the Biographies Noteboard [[2]] as I felt the page was being used to progress an agenda and that any edits would be fruitless. Having viewed the page's edit history, though, I can totally see why you messaged me given what everyone else is up to, and I appreciate your thorough oversight of the entry. Best, SH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staggeredhermit (talk • contribs) 14:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I simply screwed up; that notice was supposed to go on another editor's talk page. Very sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Austin Stowell

I agree with other's notes on this talk page that many your edits are overly broad. I am restoring the deleted content. It is well sourced, relevant, and of interest. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Well, in the absence of any reference to applicable policies and guidelines, I'm going to give your opinion the weight it deserves, which is exactly none. I suggest you review BLP policy and familiarize yourself with such discussions as User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_86#BLP_gossip and heed both Jimbo's statement rejecting the "thinking that we should chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances" as well as such comments as "Single people usually date, and famous people usually date famous people, that's not something we should devote space to" [3] as well as the discussion there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing that you reference policy and then link to a talk page. What do you read in WP:BLP that would justifying this removal? It is not gossip or rumour; it has been well established and widely reported. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Policy is what we do, and it reflects consensus. Your attempt to laugh off consensus as "amusing" underlines the groundlessness of your stance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, you've missed my point. Again: What in WP:BLP justifies removal of something that is relevant, reliable, not rumour, and justified by multiple reliable sources? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Read the discussions I've cited. Not every WP:CONSENSUS is incorporated into the policy document, they can't be. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

A report of ethnocentric edits

Dear User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Some users are trying to change the authentic and well-documented paper Feyli Lurs without any citations and scientific sources. Please have a look and help us to keep it safe. Regards--Shadegan (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits to Tahir ul Qadri page

I have added information which has been cited through 3rd party neutral soures, the page has very low level bias. If any information is incorrect or uncited, kindly edit that portion alone as wikipedia allows this to be done. Consider this a formal warning, as your reverts seem like deliberate attempsts to vandlise the page. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanialAhmedSheikh (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Call Me Joe.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Call Me Joe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to the LGBT reality page

You removed the entire Love and Hip Hop casts from the page for "nn"? as in non-notable? What makes you decide that? Most of the page is poorly referenced so it seems odd that you decided to focus on those cast members in particular (all of whom are people of color which makes me question your motives). I will find the sources and add them but to use "nn" as an excuse to erase so much information is absolutely ridiculous and ignorant. In particular the gay storyline in season 2 of LHH Hollywood was very heavily publicized and were a major part of the season. Pinchofhope (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP strictly prohibits unsourced/unreferenced claims about living people's sexuality. Period. As for your gratuitous accusation of racism, it's plain as day that I was reviewing the article starting at the top, in one-year blocs. To convert that into an accusation of racism makes me question your good faith, intellectual honesty and competence. Go away. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello. Your signature did not show up here [4]. Just thought you might want to know. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Requests for closure - Warning.

Please allow this to serve as a warning - do not edit other users' comments on pages like Requests for Closure. If you feel the other person is violating policy, put a warning on their talk page and ask them to change their comment, and if they do not do so, report them to a noticeboard. Furthermore, remember to Assume Good Faith - I read both the AfD discussion and Erpit's original closure request comment. As a completely uninvolved editor, I saw no evidence of canvassing in his comment, and given the way the AfD has gone, it's entirely reasonable to request closure with no consensus. I am going to re-revert your edit, and if you choose to edit Erpit's comment again, I will immediately file a report with WP:ANI that you are failing to assume good faith and also violating guidelines against changing other editors' comments. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Competence is required when editing Wikipedia, even on user talk pages. Citing a guideline regarding article talk pages as though it applies to noticeboard posts betrays either extraordinary careless or a lack of competence. Removing disruptive text from noticeboard posts is allowed, and it's common practice to simply close and hat such discussions. Requests for closure are not used to lobby for an involved editor's preferred outcome in contested discussions; it is evident from reviewing even just the currently open requests that this is simply not done. WP:Noticeboards, which actually governs the page involved, does not include anything like the language you mistakenly cite. Even if that page were applicable, it allows the removal of "prohibited material", which covers use of impermissible lobbying and a page where well-established practice requires neutral requests. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The guideline I cited DOES NOT only apply to article talk pages. Re-read the Talk Page Guidlines, specifically the introduction, which states: "When talk pages in other namespaces and userspaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually apply." and "All guidelines here also apply to Wikipedia discussion pages, such as articles for deletion." Furthermore, canvassing is not one of the behaviors which are allowed to be removed, only things like personal attacks, outing, copyright violations (ie comments with legal implications) can be removed, and finally, your accusation of canvassing is not supported by Erpert's behavior, so your editing is not justified. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You are dead wrong, and seizing on a minor phrasing error doesn't vitiate your error. You're also ignoring such exceptions to the guideline you cite as "Removing prohibited material" and "Removing harmful posts". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Chloë Grace Moretz

Hi, I need your help, it is about the article Chloe Grace Moretz, I can't find the actual citation source her relationship with Brooklyn Beckham has officially ended. I had the actual citation source from the newspaper website called the "Toronto Sun" and there is an article that Chloe and Brooklyn have officially split and someone has kept on removing the citation from an actual mainstream newspaper website. We know that sources from a gossip website is not allowed that is a shadowy source and unknown claims or rumors. So, could you go to Google and type in the search "Chloe Moretz Brooklyn Beckham split" and find the citation source from an actual mainstream newspaper website, but no sources from a gossip website, if you found the mainstream newspaper source. Go to the Chloe Grace Moretz article and added it for a citation source from an actual newspaper website or maybe the Toronto Sun website and no gossip website sources and while you're in Google with the search if you see the that is all gossip websites sources about Chloe and Brooklyn's split or maybe Chloe or Brooklyn's Facebook pages on their annoucement of their separation. Go to the Chloe Grace Moretz article and remove the portion from outdated gossip from it's "personal life". It's the only way to it's current source up to date on Chloe Grace Moretz article. Do your best. Thanks for your help. 2001:569:70DD:7500:1DD1:2603:8DF4:9E32 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeremy Thorpe Photo

Thank you for correcting my error in adding the photo of Jeremy Thorpe to the United Kingdom general election, February 1974. Since the photo you reverted is the same one used in his Wikipedia article, I wanted to make it is acceptable for use in Wikipedia altogether, because if not, it might to need be nominated for deletion.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Thorpe is no longer living, and no free images are apparently available, it's acceptable to use a nonfree image in the infobox of his biography (or at the top, if there were no infobox). However, outside of the bio, there are very few circumstances where such an image can be used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. Although I rarely add photos to Wikipedia articles, I will keep this experience in mind for future reference.--TommyBoy (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Confusing edit

See here Why would one of his girlfriends be notable but another not? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that the current relationship should be included, but past "relationships" aren't included absent some showing of a significant impact on the subject's life or career. Left to my own devices, I'd expunge a lot more of the "currently dating" stuff, as most of it proves insignificant. The phrase itself is next to meaningless, as it's used here for everything from routine social relationships between college students to statements like "Ally Actress is currently dating Mark Musician, the father of her three children". It doesn't communicate encyclopedic information. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed It's all equally irrelevant, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Request: Update of the Template:Baku Metro color

Greetings.

Could you update the Template:Baku Metro color which was created far back in 2012, by adding the purple color in this template alongside the red and green colors, because Baku Metro has opened a third metro line in April 2016, whose official color is purple.

I tried to link Template:S-line in the Avtovağzal (Baku Metro) and Memar Əcəmi-2 (Baku Metro) articles of the new Line 3 and in the Memar Əcəmi (Baku Metro) article of Line 2, but failed as they appear green.

I ignorantly thought I could just add a color bar in the template, but I messed it up and reverted my mess up in the template, because I discovered that I know nothing about modules and other such technical aspects. Can you fix this please, if you know how to do this?

Thank you.

Artoxx (talk) 12:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Can you help with your experience??

Can you take a look here and maybe help solve the "problem" with your experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Thomas_Woods Thnx in advance! --GLOBALIST LIBERTARIAN (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Charles Laughton

Hi. Please stop reverting this article; there is an active discussion on the talkpage regarding the part you are removing. Please participate there rather than just removing stuff you don't like. Bjelleklang - talk 09:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Please pay attention rather than making knee-jerk comments on my, or any other editor's, talk page. Multiple editors have objected to the inclusion of the content at issue, which is on its face sensationalist garbage. A single user wishes to restore it. That editor, User:Holanthony, has a long history of problematic edits to biographies. See, for example, this ANI discussion [5], where Holanthony made similarly spurious complaints about reversion of their improper edits, only to have the complaint WP:BOOMERRANG and the discussion closed with a warning "that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions". Sourcing biographies with tabloid garbage is unacceptable, whether the article subject is living or dead. Supporting an editor who plainly "clearly lack[s] a basic understanding of a number of polices (not limited to just BLP). Including accusations of child molesting against non-notable people in a BLP? When no charges were even brought?" (to quote just one comment in that ANI) is particularly unacceptable for an administrator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

1. There were no "warnings" issued as a result of the ANI post. Please get you facts straight and stop lying. Holanthony (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The admin who closed the discussion said, in their closing statement, "Holanthony is warned that further edits posing BLP problems are likely to lead to sanctions. The warning was placed on Holanthony's talk page here [6]. So, Holanthony, given the lack of integrity demonstrated by your statement above, you are unwelcome here. I have expunged the remainder of your post, since you have shown your statements are unworthy of belief. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

DRV

Hi HW. I just added a comment at [7] and given you are the only one to comment there, I thought I'd ping you about it as it was an issue not previously discussed. Honestly, I'm not sure if the issue I've raised is one others would think relevant, but I thought I'd at least make you aware of it. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Amber Heard page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Walter Ernsting 1965.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Walter Ernsting 1965.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Jimbo

Hi, You have a point in that we shouldn't add statements without sourcing them and I should've known better than to reinstate it however I want to ask a question - As you stated "Per Jimbo Wales" in the edit summary - My question is do you take anything he says seriously ? ...,
We all respect different editors etc etc however Jimbo's statements don't hold much weight considering he's known to be the type of person where for example he wants civility to be improved and yet in the same thread he cannot and will not do anything about it,
What I'm trying to say is Jimbo's statements mean nothing to no one here so it may not be a good idea to say "per him" (ofcourse if you said "per policy" then great I understand and agree but "per Jimbo" ... not so much...),
Ofcourse if you believe Jimbo speaks sense etc etc then that's your opinion and something I'll respect but not many people really take him nor what he has to say seriously so you may want to say per policy or whatever but just wanted to point this out,
Anyway have a great day and happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 21:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

BLP resources/guidelines

Instead of just reverting my changes and citing vague reasons, why don't you point me in the right direction of BLP resources so I can get a better grip at editing? I'm sure you like educating people. Mind showing me? SPNKs (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You cited two self-published blogs for claims regarding a living person. It hardly gets more basic than that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Also I doubt you have seen the film, it's so obvious a body double was used (the camera even does not show her face, just focuses on the bare chest). Jane Curtin wouldn't bare her chest. She's a very modest, humble, and reserved person. So that information on the "self-published blogs" makes sense. SPNKs (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinions on what "makes sense" don't entitle you to violate WP:BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my opinion. Thanks for the link though, it's a shame the information is correct. SPNKs (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Weapon X/Marvel Specials

Hi, you proposed the deleted of my overview/list page which included non-free/fair-use-rational pictures. I somehow forgot that the inclusion of these pictures are not allowed on user pages. The problem is, I still need my list and want to keep it (without the pictures included), but I didn't have time to make a backup before deletion and I cant retrieve the source code from history cause the whole page was deleted. Is there a way of retrieving the original source code? (I won't use the images again.) Greetings - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 18:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to post a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for an admin to email you a copy of the source code, so you can clean it up and restore it to your userspace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I contacted the admin who deleted the side and he send me the source code. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 21:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Special"

In regard to part of this comment you made, "not a 'special', whatever that means": My meaning was television special, basically a break from regular programming (i.e. pornography in this case). I suppose that is technically incorrect as the video in question didn't air on a tv channel. Leaving a note here instead of at the AfD, as not to clutter the discussion there with something off point, and as this isn't a reply to the substantive part of your comment.

On a side note: I had a little trouble loading and navigating this page due to its size, hence I added the {{Archiveme}} template at the top. Best Regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 05:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Prinzzess

Hello, I need you help on the article Prinzzess a registered user by the names of User:Trivialist and User:Holanthony has kept on adding poorly sourced content via WP:NOTTABLOID, I use the edit summary by typing WP:NOTTABLOID and No reliable current source. Could you review the article Prinzzess and make sure no poorly sourced contant will be added via WP:NOTTABLOID and If the article does continue adding relationship sourced content. Remove it and warn User:Trivialist never adding relationship soucred content because there is no current source for the relationship. In order to do that, please add the article Prinnzess into your watchlist so no users going to be re-adding sources. This is an urgent message. Thanks for the message and talk to me fast as you can. Again, Thanks. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Prinzzess page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Travis Scott article

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, see this matter with Bleeding thumb (talk · contribs). What is your opinion on it? How should I proceed? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that the editor has been blocked as a sock (he quite clearly was one). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Dating news removal

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,

As you indicated there is a consensus through many prior discussions to not include "relationship" reports that fails to demonstrate significance in someone's life or career, do you happen to have link(s) to those discussions, so I can use them as references for future? I personally dislike these dating news a lot, but from experience, everytime it gets erased out of someone's bio, someone will eventually add it back. Thanks so much.--TerryAlex (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I usually cite this discussion [8] from Jimbo's talk page, usually quoting Jimbo to the effect that "we should [not] chronicle every single twist and turn of celebrity romances". In more extended discussions, I also cite the policy page Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not for the point that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". While such content is often added back, my impression has been that about 95% of the time either the removal sticks or, much less often, an editor finds appropriate sourcing to justify inclusion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Keith Olbermann page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on Chloë Grace Moretz's Tabloid Gossip

Hi Hullaballoo, I was about to remove a portion of gossip per WP:NOTTABLOID. But it's kept on re-added. The citation gossip source is not allowed per WP:NOTTABLOID. Could you do me a favor, I want you to go to Chloe Grace Moretz's talk page and there is a question on the article's talk page. Option A: Is to add a possible citation source for her breakup with Brooklyn Beckham and Option B: Is to remove a portion of outdated citation source gossip under "Personal life" per WP:NOTTABLOID. There is the link right there. All Wikipedians must have a majority consensus. I hope you make a decision on Chloe Grace Moretz's article talk page. Thanks. 209.53.181.152 (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

209.53.181.152, please read WP:CANVASS immediately; with this request, you are demanding a "majority consensus" comprising one editor. Meantime, I have replied on the article's talk page, where this discussion belongs. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of your stalking

I added you to my Stalking tracker. But best of all, I learned to develop a bot detect reversed edits by stalkers like you, even if you try to mask your edits with multiple accounts. --Gstree (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: cut it out - you continuously editing this section is getting disruptive. If you have an issue or believe your edits are being stalked please raise this at WP:ANI or drop me a message on my talk page -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: No need to, I trust my own bots more than Wikipedia users in general. There are too many stupid people in this world. --Gstree (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: What kind of bot is this? Has it been approved by the Bot Approvals Group? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thank you for being supportive. Perhaps I should suggest my code to any of the bot examples. Can you please guide me? --Gstree (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Gstree: Up to you. The crux of my message was that you cannot run a bot on Wikipedia without it getting approved first, so please don't do that. In the meantime, constantly leaving HW messages is just going to make any previous disagreements worse, so it's best to leave them alone -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 15:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: I won't. Yes, I leave this discussion for a dead end then. --Gstree (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gstree (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Gupta family photo NFCC#8 failure

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I noticed you deleted the photograph of the Atul Gupta from the Gupta family article arguing that it fails NFCC#8. I am inclined to take your word for it but I would also like you to please expand on how you feel it fails NFCC#8? Thanks, Discott (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

"To illustrate" is not a valid NFCC use rationale. To meet NFCC#8, an image must add meaning beyond what can be conveyed by text alone. Here, the image adds nothing -- the claim of a "close relationship" is not even supported by being seated together at a public function. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

chrissy greetings

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Mwiaowy xmas Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI, part deux

Hey there,

I mentioned your efforts (thanks!) in keeping Kay Parker free of unsourced material in an ANI post regarding the IP user who keeps reverting it. If you want to chime in, the link is here: [9] K_arunamon ^Talk 18:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

what's wrong with character names of Black Easter echoing famous politicians of that era

Hi there,

What was wrong with the section in Black Easter with the echoing of famous politicians of that era in the names of major characters of the novel.

The similiarities are actually there. You have to be blind not to see them.

Endo999 (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source making the connection(s). Your own conclusion, based on a primary source (the novel itself) (valid though it may seem) isn't enough. See WP:NOR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I got some primary sources that back up some of my assertions about character names. I put some of the information back in the article, with the references attached. Endo999 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)