User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 18

Talk protected

Hi HW, just a quick note letting you know I've semi'd your talk page for two days -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Same again (two days) -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 21:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

anna faris

Whats with the attitude? seems like an ongoing thing with you and deleting valid updates to pages just going through your talk page.

I updated Anna Faris with a story, i was told that it didnt contain a reference but to upload again with something from a proper source so i uploaded again with a Ref from a National Newspaper. Your use of caps and telling me not to undo the deletion is taking it a bit far considering others told me how to upload the edit properly with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E28:C400:95ED:E596:C4AF:5036 (talk) 02:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop dissembling and feigning wounded indignation. You cut-and-pasted copyrighted content from a self-published blog, b\violating copyright policy and WP:BLP. Nobody told you that was permissible. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you going round in circles citing a different reason for the removal each time. Not very professional. Every time i sort what the issue is you cite a completely unrelated reason. Get a grip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8E28:C400:349A:5353:E272:4254 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

National film Registry

Why do you keep deleting images from the National Film Registry page? Some of these images are in the public domain, and all of them are featured in other Wikipedia pages having been previously uploaded and licensed. I have worked very hard to create that section of the page and your deletion of so much is hurtful to me.

I have also not been warned several times over the past few weeks. DeaditeWheatley (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

As I posted to your talk page, those images were grossly noncompliant with WP:NFC and related policies. The fact that a nonfree image may be used on one page in no way indicates it may be used on any other. You should also read WP:NFCCE carefully, which sets out the policy governing these image removals: "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 January

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 Amy Ried 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) 00:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Enforcement has been lodged

A request for enforcement has been lodged against you at WP:AE Holanthony (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit to Pete Davidson

Thanks for this You're doing God's work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Investigation

Not sure if I did this right, but you may want to see Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/TTN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.201.254 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Governor Frank O'Bannon

I saw you have undid my edit on the Indiana gubernatorial election, 2000. All I did was add a picture of Democratic nominee and eventual winner Frank O'Bannon. Given that he had a picture on his page, I took the liberty of taking it and adding it to the election page. Would you please explain why this is problematic? I would really appreciate it. Count Awesome (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a non-free image. Nonfree images can only be used, per WP:NFCC#8, when "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Here, understanding that O'Bannon was the candidate can be conveyed perfectly by text alone. Also, under NFCC policy, the fact that an image is used in one article does not mean that it may be used in other articles; every time you add an nonfree image to an article, you must provide a valid article-specific use rationale that independently justifies its use in that particular article. The existing use of the image in question was justified under image use standards which allow the use of a nonfree image of a deceased person only in their biography. See WP:NFCI#10. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Balbir9005/Mary queen

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Balbir9005/Mary queen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject is a porn star, and it's not disparaging. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shock sites

Think you could discuss your reasoning on the talk page? The inclusion criteria on this page has been a topic of many discussions over the years, and your presumption that an entry in a list is automatically non-notable, regardless of sourcing, if it does not have an article of its own, is an arbitrary and exclusionary practice. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ashlynkapriella

Could you edit my wiki page? Ashlynkapriella (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair use book cover in author bio

Hi. Regarding your deletion of a fair use non-free book cover image: where the copyright holder wishes to give permission for image of book cover to be used, how should he proceed to indicate this, and which template do I use? Thanks Mramoeba (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of image rationale

I explained in the revert of Arlie Neaville that this a non-free image but is allowed to be used as it fits ALL criteria listed under Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, not just #2. Your rationale for the second removal was "Unquestionable violation NFCC2 (respect for commercial opportunities) is necessary but, on its own, grossly insufficient!" - I don't see an "unquestionable violation", your first removal was reverted in good faith and I explained my rationale, but I don't see your argument for removal, especially for a second time. I would appreciate if you would self-revert this edit. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, not a word in your argument or on the file page making a case as to why we would be unable to obtain a free image of a living person who is identified as a currently (or at least recently) active performer. That's pretty much an open-and-shut-case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"? I could not locate a free image of this person, but if you can by all means please replace it and tag with this template. Otherwise, I disagree this is an "open and shut" case, and I implore you to take this up at Wikipedia:Files for discussion, per the guide to image deletion ("For images claimed under fair use...which do not meet the above but may not meet non-free content criteria for other reasons, list at Wikipedia:Files for discussion according to instructions there), as this removal has been challenged. Please do not remove it until others have commented on the matter. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No. Nonfree images in living people are subject to a virtually conclusive presumption of replaceability under WP:NFC#UUI#1 and the WMF licensing policy. No prior discussion for removing such an image is required, and such images should not be restored without consensus that NFC requirements are satisfied. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You do know what edit warring is, right? Reverting you twice, with messages on your talk page explaining my actions, does not qualify as 3RR. Don't template me with "edit warring" unless you do a little reading up on the matter. Garchy (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Don't post crap on my talk page. Edit warring does not require a 3RR violation. Stop wasting my time arguing about NFC issues you plainly do not understand, in defiance of specific wording in the relevant policy pages! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Got it. You ever think of playing nice, or genuinely assuming good faith in people? You seem to hold a lot of hostility, but that's nothing I can help you with. Have a good day! Garchy (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Basil Rigg

Hi there. Your initial deletion had the edit summary of "nonfree image in BLP infobox". Is it's positioning in an infobox the specific issue, or are you against non-free images in BLP articles as a whole, even with a NF rationale? I couldn't find any mention of infobox restrictions on any policy or talk pages, so I reverted. After your non-specific "against policy" re-revert, I again read the page and believe that a photograph of a sportsman during his notable era clearly fits in the first exemption in WP:NFC#UUI, more than if a free photo could be obtained of a 90 year old man. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Both. This issue has been argued to death over performer images, and there's no exception to NFC requirements for performers in their prime. The exception you claim is limited to people who are notable primarily due to their physical appearance, and that's obviously not the case here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

URAA sucks. It's a public domain image. Enjoy Textopedia. The-Pope (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Album cover fair use?

You recently removed this image [1] from this article [2]. Under the fair use guidelines it seems this album cover would be acceptable to use on Wikipedia? This is not accurate; is it; since the image is used in an article? "This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles" I am no expert on this area so thought I'd check with you. An editor emailed me and asked me if I knew anything about this. I don't know much but you probably do. Many thanks for your assistance on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

While the album cover would be acceptable in an article about the album itself, our nonfree use standards are more restrictive than general fair use, and generally prohibit the use of fair use images of record covers in musician bios. See the annotation to WP:NFCI#1, which states that, for Wikipedia purposes, such images should not be used "when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

OK thank you. I understand the distinction.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC))

Chester Brown

Is it really a good idea to remove this image? Louis Riel (comics) is Brown's best-known work—I figured a panel demonstrating his style that also tied in with his politics would be better than a random image. Doesn't it just need a better-written rationale? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings about which of the two images would be preferable; I elected to leave the other one in because it not only demonstrated visual style but also carried a caption directly commenting on his dialogue, which is more closely related to his work than a comment on his politics. If you choose to substitute the one you prefer, I hope you'll write a new caption that's more related to the image. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Non-free lede image in BLP"

• [3]

Is there a new policy that says BLPs can't use non-free images? Deryck C. 10:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

From WP:UUI#1: "The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions. . . . Pictures of people still alive". There are exceptions when taking a new free picture as a replacement is not considered possible, but that is generally limited to prisoners serving life or very lengthy sentences, fugitives, and the permanently institutionalized. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Deryck C. 15:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on Playboy

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1995&action=history Hoping you will agree this page should be removed entirerly. None of those sources are even remotely accurate. thank you. Richterer11111 (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Bryan Austin

It's in a section about the album, being used to identify the album? How is it not fair use? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's fair use, but NFCC standards are more restrictive than fair use and album images in musician bios generally aren't allowed, per WP:NFCI#1, where the annotation in the guideline states "The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Charlotte Drury

Hi. Can you please explain your edit to this page removing the pictures? You state that there are "multiple replaceable nonfree images", but I'm unsure how you concluded they were nonfree? They were taken by the athlete and posted on her Instagram page. Thanks. Cizzlewizzle (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The infobox image comes from the USA Gymnastics website, which carries a copyright notice on its homepage. The second image indeed comes from Drury's Instagram page, but does not carry any license/release. Copyright is presumably held by its photographer. Both images are accurately identified as nonfree on their file description pages. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

RFU files

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. If you come across any file which clearly fails NFCC#1, you can tag it for speedy deletion using {{rfu}} per WP:F7. Removing the file and orphaning it per WP:F5 means seven days are given to resolve the issue and the file can simply be de-orphaned by re-adding the file to an article. Tagging it as RFU, however, means that only two days are given to sort things out and the file will be reviewed by an admin regardless of whether it's an orphan. The RFU can of course be contested by the uploader, but this will be reviewed by an admin as well. In addition, the RFU notification template is also a little more specific to NFCC#1, which may make it easier for the uploader to understand the problem at hand. Of course, in some cases, it might not be clear where WP:FREER applies, and in those cases maybe FFD is necessary.

Finally, if a RFU image is being used with a caption, you can add {{deletable image-caption}} to the file's markup in the article. The reviewing admin typically goes around removing the file's syntax and captions when they delete RFU files, so you don't have to do lots of manual cleanup after the fact.

These are just suggestions which might help to avoid any confusion on behalf of the uploader and make it a little clearer to them why the file does not satisfy WP:NFCCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Clayton Luckie

Based on your talk page history, you seem to be engaged in a pattern recently of removing images from pages under questionable grounds without any forewarning. Just recently you removed an image that I added to the page for Clayton Luckie which had been left up without problem for over four years on the basis that it "fails NCFF#8" with no further explanation. I disagree with your assessment. NCFF#8 states that such images may be used "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I feel the image illustrates the situation described in a graphic way that text alone cannot and its removal is detrimental to the quality of the article. Unless you can provide sufficient argument otherwise, I intend to restore the image. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

If you restore the image without achieving consensus for your (rather flimsy) argument that an image of an arrest taking place is necessary to properly understand that the article subject had been arrested, I will remove it again and, if necessary, seek edit warring sanctions. No "forewarning" is required for removing NFCC violations. And I suggest you review the actual outcomes of the complaints you mention, which you obviously have not bothered to do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Miss Hayman

Hi,

I notice you had removed the photo I added to Damaris Hayman's page - File:Damaris Hayman.jpg. Just to say I've put it back with a (hopefully) improved rationale. There are still obvious problems with the file, but I'm hoping you will be lenient. Anyway, it's up to you. Beryl reid fan (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Cayley glider photo

I have opened a discussion on the article Talk page about the image you deleted. Looking forward to your participation there. DonFB (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Coco Star

File:Singer and songwriter Coco Star.jpg has been there since 2012 and does not tagged as non-free nor a copyright vio. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Your recent editing history at List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 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 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. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: ). Thank you. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hitomi Tanaka

This is not related to any previous articles. I sourced every piece of information from reputable places. I am not sure if this is some type of bias against the subject matter, but there are no grounds to delete this based on what was posted.

She is notable because:

- She has appeared in over 430+ films,

- She has a photobook released of her(Japanese ISBN included)

- There are sources from Japan and America listed including The New York Daily News, Score, Playboy, Mondo TV and TV Tokyo.

- She has multiple wikipedia's in other languages.

- She has made appearances on television shows and I have cited two of them

Also worth noting is that she is a porn star, and she's going to have limited mainstream media events due to it. Places like CNN and the Wall Street Journal in America are not going to be talking about porn, yet alone individual stars, and it's no different in Japan.

She also passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG, which were the main arguments used against her last time and if she doesn't pass PORNBIO, I have no idea who would.

You have also said that this is too close to the original article. Non-admins cannot see the original article, so I have no idea what went on there. But all people of something are going to have pages look the same. Ron Jeremy isn't going to have a page that looks like Lance Armstrong, but Lance's page and the page of Alberto Contador are going to look similar, because they are in the same field. She is also going to have the same career and accomplishments as listed before, because that's her career. She's not going to suddenly have cycling results on her page or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

{{subst:DRVNote|Hitomi Tanaka]} ChiefWahooMcDonalds (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Images removal rationale

If you'd have given a clearer explanation for the removal of those two images rather than the blunt, ambiguous "redundant non-free image", I'd have agreed with your subsequent explanation ("violation of NFCC#3a") and neither of us would have undone the other's edit. Best regards.--Kieronoldham (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Images removed from article

Greetings. You removed the images from the article Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (blackjack). You might want to participate in the related discussion started here. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Album cover orphaned

Your [edit] orphaned the file File:Brettina CD cover.jpeg on grounds that it was a non-free image, resulting its deletion. However, a reference to the image file exists on an [archived copy] of the singer's official page, indicating that a version of the image was released as CC-BY-SA, and the image itself is archived on [another page] with the CC-BY-SA notation. — Steve98052 (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The image I removed was identified as nonfree. If you can document that a different version of the image was released under a valid free license -- and ordinarily the copyright to an album cover is held by the label, not the performer -- you may upload that image to Commons and use it in the bio. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

About the copyvio tags

Hi. Regarding your edits to File:Hiroki-Morinoue-Night-Views-C3.jpg and File:Hiroki-Morinoue-Night-Views-T2.JPG, there are two things you might be unaware of:

1. The tag that applies is actually F9, not G12.
2. For both, you must provide at least one source URL so that administrators have valid proof that the page is indeed a copyright infringement before deleting the page in question. If you don't, the CSD will most likely be declined.

Please keep these tips in mind when tagging another copyvio. Thanks! 2605:6000:ED08:DD00:49FD:A4F2:9713:DCC1 (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Benico del Toro

Sorry but you where the last established editor on the page. Thanks to an Australian IP who edited the page there is now an internet rumor that BDT is going to be a Fett in the last Jedi. It has since been added the guy who spotted it. I have changed it. Other than that I don't know what to do.

A kitten for you!

Sorry for experiencing all the bullying here. Internet should be a safe place for everyone where we are respectful and kind to each other, a place where all ideas are valued based on arguments, just like in real life.

MariaOlteanu (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Harisu

Regarding your removal of the image, I respectfully disagree. Please take it to Wikipedia:Files for discussion if you still feel otherwise where it can be discussed properly. PC78 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

James Blake Miller Marlboro Marine photo

Per bot notification that it was to be deleted as a result of being removed from the article, I have restored it to the article but in the section about the photograph itself, per the FUC, where it accompanies sourced commentary about the image.

I note your removal rationale was the same as the one you provided for Cory Maye (a picture I uploaded years ago when the article was created), that we may not use non-free images in BLP infoboxes.

This is sort of a new wrinkle on the NFCC to me ... I had always thought that it was permissible to do so if it was unlikely that a free image could be created, and in Maye's case I thought that applied since he was in prison at the time and thus not available for photography. I'm not contesting it here because the whole case was so long ago and Maye's appearance isn't the source of his notability, but I still would like to know exactly where this is spelled out in policy.

Further, I wonder if we might not make an exception for people whose notability derives from being the subject of a photograph? Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is my understanding too: " I had always thought that it was permissible to do so if it was unlikely that a free image could be created". I have recently restored an image that was taken down by Wolfowitz for this reason. Regards, Soulparadox (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The governing WMF licensing policy resolution and en-wiki's nonfree use policy quite explicitly describe "portraits of living notable individuals" as a canonical example of replaceable nonfree images. As the WMF resolution states, it can't be circumvented by an exception created by "local policies of any Wikimedia project"; therefore, we can't create an exception (via policy or practice)"people whose notability derives from being the subject of a [nonfree] photograph". The standards for when a free image can't be created are quite constraining, and have been pretty much limited in practice to the permanently institutionalized, fugitives, and those under very lengthy terms of incarceration. Cory Maye fell under that latter criterion when the image was originally uploaded, but since his death sentence was later lifted and he was released from prison, it no longer held, and the image had to be removed. The image Soulparadox restored, of Jack Picone is an obvious NFCC violation -- the subject is alive, a reasonably public figure, and currently a lecturer at a notable university. The use rationale does not even claim that the image is nonreplaceable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarity, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk). What is the best option in this case? To obtain permission from the photographer, as this is a possibility? Regards,Soulparadox (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rianne van Rompaey. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Jim Steranko

Hi, Hullaballoo. Just asking: Given that the illustration of Steranko History of Comics is the article's only example of the prolific cover-illustrator's book-cover art, and that it also illustrates a book he wrote, it seems it would be as much fair use as anything else in the article, particularly since it additionally demonstrates him as a publisher. Perhaps in this case, it might be worth reconsidering. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. But four illustrations in the article were too many. The other three had use rationales based on supporting particular aspects of the artist;s style, which is a generally acceptable use rationale, while the rationale for this one was simply as illustrating the existence of a project he published -- which on its own is not an acceptable NFCC violation. This one, therefore, had the weakest use rationale. Also, all the illustrations come from a brief (if prolific) early part of his career, and if a book cover illustration was included, I'd think a later one (at least the mid-70s) would be a better choice than another late-sixties-type illustration. I wouldn't mind seeing that Spyman cover go, though, as its value as a style illustration is pretty low, with a Brackett or Shadow cover added further down as a more representative example of his cover illustration style. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, you make a reasonable case, though I think it's still a grey area. I guess I'll go along. And it's true, given the choice, a paperback cover, for which Steranko is known and which displays a different, painted style, does make great sense. I would advocate for the Spyman cover in that it illustrates Steranko's first published comic-book work, an inset that shows so much more sophisticated a drawing technique that even that of the estimable George Tuska on the rest of the cover.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

 Warning In general editors are free to remove comments from their talk page. They are also, with some exceptions, free to bar other editors from commenting there. However your recent edit summary is a flagrant violation of WP:NPA and is unacceptable. Further such abuses may result in administrative sanctions. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL when interacting with other editors, even when you are in a vigorous disagreement. Civility is among the most important cornerstones of the project, without which it would quickly collapse. Thank you for your contributions but again, please try to keep cool when when you are sorting out differences. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

"nonfree image outside articlespace"

I noticed that you removed an image from Wikipedia:WikiDwarf, because it was a "nonfree image outside articlespace". I'm not familiar with this concept. If you don't mind, could you explain what that means or send me to a WP protocol page? Thanks. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NFCC, which is policy, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace" (with a small number of exceptions for technical/maintenance pages). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested full protection for Jane Morgan

You may be interested in this protection request for the Jane Morgan article. 87.19.188.227 (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Joyce Hoffman.jpg

It would be better if you had read the file documentation first, before filing a dispute. No clearer example of the Retired individual exception could be found, as I hope you will agree. Please withdraw your dispute. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. She is notable because of her athletic achievements (which, by the way, aren't evidenced in this image). She isn't notable because she looked good in a swimsuit a few decades ago. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to the actual file, and article:

Title: Women's world surfing champion Joyce Hoffman standing with longboard in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., 1964 --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

She's not notable for standing next to surfboards, either. The exemption you're invalidly claiming applies only when the person's appearance is the primary focus of their notability, which isn't the case here. Not even arguably. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please Help

Hello Hullaballoo,

As you can see from my unintended mistake of uploading the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jude_Demorest.jpg, I am a fairly new Wikipedia Editor.

So could you please help me find a freely licensed photo of Jude Demorest from the internet?

Or, you could educate me on how to search the internet in general for freely licensed media. That way, I can replace the image in question with a freely licensed image.

Thank you!
Siva

--Sivabhaskar (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello ???? Are you there? --Sivabhaskar (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Karen Greenlee drawing.png

Hi! Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karen_Greenlee&type=revision&diff=770124368&oldid=768946066 -- can you just point out for me what policy exactly you're enforcing here? I've tried to read through NFCC and nothing jumped out at me w/r/t disallowing fair-use images in BLP infoboxes. Is it an infobox thing? Was the fair use rationale not up to some standards? Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say to see generally to see discussions like this (Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Replaceable fair use for retired, no longer publically active living individuals. The main purpose of the BLP infobox image is to serve as a general illustration of the person who is the central subject of the article; outside of a few very limited exceptions, nonfree images are not allowed for this purpose. It's not unusual, though not really consistent with best practice, for an example of the work of a visual artist to appear in an infobox when no free image of the artist is available, but moving such images to the part of the article they actually illustrate isn't a high enforcement priority. Even treating that drawing as a self-portrait, it couldn't be used to illustrate the subject herself; she isn't notable as an artist, and her art isn't discussed in the article; and there's one image on Commons that would serve to illustrate the general purpose for which the nonfree image is used. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to the discussion, but I don't see any actual consensus against fair-use images in BLP infoboxes. Is that written somewhere else in policy? What your saying sounds like you're describing policy (are not allowed, etc.) but I can't seem to find the actual policy that supports your assertion. Thanks in advance for your guidance. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Brian Lumley book covers

You recently removed two book covers from the article Brian Lumley, but your edit was reverted. I have started discussions for the book covers at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:Brian lumley the touch.jpg and Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 March 18#File:TAINT-c19035.jpg. Please feel free to join the discussion there. Aspects (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2017 (UTC) ntinue reverting repeatedly. - The Bounder (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Portrait of Lester Brickman

I have a fair use challenge from you, but do not see how to add the "Your reason" information to the page. There are no available free portraits of Professor Brickman. Professor Brickman, who commissioned the portrait from a photographer in 2009 for the purpose of having such a portrait to distribute to media, has given me written permission to use it. If this is not good enough please tell me what I need to do.Curmudgeonette (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Prof. Brickman needs to release the image under an appropriate free license. The best way to do this would be for him to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons himself, or for him to send an appropriate permission to you, and for you to handle the matter through the WP:OTRS process. The Wikimedia Foundation generally does not allow Wikipedia to use images under Wikipedia-only permissions, or licenses which do not allow commercial reuse or modification. It would be perfectly reasonable for Prof. Brickman not to want to donate his intellectual property under these conditions, but if so the photo won't be usable on Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Tea Leoni and Tim Daly

Hi Hullaballo, just wondering why you removed the personal life content from these two articles saying that it was not supported by the cited source when that is what the source says (and gives the date of Daly's divorce, for which you added a cn tag). Is there a problem with the reference itself or was this an error? Thanks, Melcous (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Claiming a relationship has continued since 2014 requires a reasonably current source. The source cited is from 2015. That's nowhere current enough. You're basically citing a claim of a short-term relationship (no more than a few months) into one of a long=term relationship (multiple years). This is a well-settled BLP issue. The discussion of Daly's first marriage was wholly unsourced prior to the addition of the dating claim, and only partially sourced by the later reference on a different claim. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

You gave me kittens, so here is one for you!

Hi, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You gave me kittens today when I saw that an AN/I report had been filed that I was involved with. Next time, just contact Ben and I directly so we can fix it without any dramuh. No harm, no foul. Have a great day!

{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of image of Ferrari crash

See Talk:Ling Jihua#Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for comment regarding your recent edit to Ling Jihua. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

could you please be more careful...

I requested restoration of File:Turkish ads use a hairy and disheveled KSM.jpg. On the deleting administrator's talk page I pointed out that the f5 they put in the deletion log should only be used when non-free images had gone without being used for seven days, but, when they deleted it, this image had only gone without being used for about four hours -- that is, since your second excision of it, yesterday.

On their talk page I wrote: "I think Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's second excision of the image gives the grave appearance of a lapse from WP:BATTLEGROUND. I think they should have let the discussion I opened play out."

Yes, I see, from your signature, that you feel harassed. Let's be clear, my observation that I think you gave the appearance of a lapse from WP:BATTLEGROUND is not an accusation of bad faith. I think you made a mistake. We are all fallible, and, eventually, all good faith contributors will make a mistake -- multiple mistakes.

In my opinion, our goal should not be the unachievable zero mistakes, it should be to recognize early, when we have made a mistake, and to openly acknowledge that mistake, so the people we work with know they can trust us.

In this particular instance I am going to suggest you reconsider your second excision. I am going to suggest you consider acknowledging that you should have let the discussion I opened at Talk:Khalid Sheikh Mohammed play out. Decision making here on the WMF project is supposed to be through consensus, after all. 11:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that, per WMF resolution and nonfree use policy, exceptions to the nonfree use standards cannot be granted by local consensus. This was a garden-variety NFCC violation, and was subject to summary removal. "To illustrate" is not a valid use rationale, otherwise any nonfree image could be used in a pertinent article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)