User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 21

Mohsin khan and Shivangi joshi

what is your problem huh? why are you removing the authentic information from the actor pages? if you have any problem talk to me inside of removing it. stop acting like the admin here and if u have guts reply me back which you haven't. Saad123890 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Saad123890, admin here. Please don't threaten other editors. I'm looking at your work right now. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

mohsin khan

you talk about BLP how should i post about mohsin khan age? which you remove? can i even post his real age? with a credible source? Saad123890 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding copyrights of files

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Can you please check the copyrights of this image ? Does it comply with the policy?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks generally OK to me; thanks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Thank a ton for your valuable reply. One last thing: Can I re-upload the deleted images with the same copyright tag as of this image, which I mentioned above?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

In general, no. Copyrighted book cover images are allowed only in articles regarding the books themselves, not in the author's biography. I believe the deleted images were used only on biography pages. There was one case where I substituted a properly licensed image from an Amazon page, and if you feel strongly that the cover you photographed was a better choice, you may replace that one, which is used only in the article about the book itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for your reply of concern. So I decide to re-upload all deleted images (now with copyrights as same as of image) but will not use it in author-biography articles. Do you agree?
--Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It would be better to create the article (at least the basic text) about each book before you upload its cover. WP:NFCC#7 requires that nonfree images be used in at least one article, and there's an automatic process that quickly tags and removes unused nonfree images. Most (maybe all) of the upload wizards won't let you upload a nonfree image until you identify an article it's going to be used in. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for the guidance. | --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Gary Williams copyright

Hi there. Apologies for not messaging you before. I didn't understand why a CD cover image was being removed when I get putting it back. I am still learning Wikipedia and I checked on the history page to see you found an issue with the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosents (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Puder image

Hello, I'm the original poster for this image File:2004-11-04-WWE-SmackDown-Tough-Enough-Daniel-Puder-Kimura-Locks-Kurt-Angle.jpg and I would like to know how to resolve this issue.

You stated that this image is a replaceable nonfree image, but this is the only known image of the event stated in the Daniel Puder article and so it is not replaceable, and I state that this image falls under fair use as for the reasons I state below:

The requirements of "don't use larger excerpts of a single work than necessary" and "don't use images of higher resolution than necessary" has been addressed, as the image is only a crop of a screenshot from a Youtube video and not the whole screenshot, the resolution of the Youtube video is low resolution and the image has been resized by a Wikipedia bot. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

After reading your user talk page, I've decided not to pursue this issue any longer and allow the non-free fair-use image to be deleted as per the rules of Wikipedia, the reason I've elected to not pursue this issue any longer is to avoid being called a blithering idiot by you as you had done to another user, I'm a very sensitive person and your attitude towards others in your user talk makes me nervous.

Please do not take this personally, I'm just a very sensitive person. Greg The Webmaster (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Mai Lin

I saw you restored the redirect for that article. Is there a place that the longstanding consensus is documented? As a newer NPP I would love to read it/be able to reference it in the future. Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

File:VITA mission logo.jpg

Hi, I see you removed this file from the article Paolo Nespoli. If I can't put it in a larger format, Is it fair use to put it as a mission logo patch in the astronaut infobox, like all other mission patches? Note that ESA allows Free usage for educational purposes, just not a total free license and that's why it cant be in commons. Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Per the WMF, noncommercial/educational-only permission is insufficient to permit use of an otherwise nonfree image. Because the subject's participation on the mission can be fullu conveyed by text alone, WP:NFCC#8 bars use of the nonfree image. The same principle has been uniformly applied to military insignia, without significant disagreement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Image copyrights

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Greetings!
Would you please recommend a copyright tag for a non-free image of a person (like without applying any OTRS license as done in here).
You can check this image for example. Will a Non-free use rationale, Non-free use rationale 2 or CopyrightedFreeUse is applicable?
Thank you, --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Nonfree images of living persons generally can't be used to illustrate their biographies, absent certain unusual circumstances (eg, prisoners serving life sentences, long-term fugitives. An active TV actor certainly doesn't fall into any of the exceptions. Wait for a free image to turn up. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. --Ganeshprasadkp (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Longhair\^talk 00:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another example of an admin with misplaced priorities and double standards. So it's perfectly OK with you for an editor to repeatedly post harassing messages on my talk page, violate 3RR, commit and support BLP violations, and demonstrate a substantial and sustained lack of competence. But I used the term "twit" (a term I've seen admins direct at individuals without consequence or comment. After years of enduring far worse comments than "twit", which have generally been allowed to go by without sanction or censure by our collectively feckless corps of administrators, I am hardly surprised, but it certainly supports my opinion that you are one of too, too many admins who is a net negative to the Wikipedia project. Keep up the bad work! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Guernica

Hello. I saw you've removed the image of Picasso's Guernica (File:PicassoGuernica.jpg) from the articles on the museum in which it is exhibited and from the Madrid page. These are surely fair uses of the image, as it defines the museum to a large extent and is one of, if not the, major tourist attractions of Madrid. I've never tried to format a fair use template, can you assist with these so the image and its caption can be returned to both pages? The painting was a "gift to the people of Spain" from Picasso, and thus should be an easy affirmative fair use question. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The nonfree image is not at all necessary to understand the fact ostensibly being illustrated. Therefore the uses fail NFCC#8. No valid use rationales can be constructed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Would disagree on this point. As quoted on the NFCC page "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic". Many non-visual-art savvy readers who would not recognize the name of the painting would recognize the famous image, and would then realize that it is a key fixture of both the city and the museum. So, at least very arguably, valid use is clear. If you can't help with the formatting of a valid use templates, can a page lurker either assist with this or give me pointers on how to go forward? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That function is served by the link to the article on the painting itself. Your argument proves too much -- we generally can't use nonfree images of people mentioned in articles, even if their names aren't readily recognizable. Your point has been argued and rejected before. WP:FFD and WP:MCQ discussions may provide further guidance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Has it been argued on such a major item? A museum would be defined by its collection, and in this case Guernica is not only the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía's major attraction but may be Spain's most recognizable national treasure (hence the Madrid page use, not to mention its potential use on the 'Spain' article itself). A link to the painting's page is fine, but does not have the impact of "Look what's in this museum!" to a visual-arts-uneducated reader browsing Madrid museum pages to see what to take in on their visit. Most importantly, perhaps, is the fact that Picasso gifted the painting to the people of Spain, so its fair use perimeters are arguably extended to these two pages (and even the 'Spain' page itself). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on remaining non-free image use

Hello, I have been working to educate myself about WP:NFCC after I saw you removed an image use from The Phenomenauts. Would you have time to give your opinion on non-free image use for the remaining two non-free images in that article? It appears you have a lot of experience in this area :)

I posted a question on the WP:MCQ here. I'm wondering if my understanding is correct. It seems like there is a stronger argument for using the remaining two non-free images, since each appears in a section about the item itself, and the section specifically explains and deals with the non-free image being depicted. Is that accurate?

I have tried to improve my understanding of appropriate non-free image use. I have re-read through WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, Arguments to avoid, this Signpost entry on reviewing non-free images, a dozen pages from the Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions archive on "contextual significance", as well as your talk page here. I am working to gain a better understanding.

Thanks for your time! --Culix (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Would you please settle the image issue here.. .
Reference: Link.
Thank you, --Gpkp (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please help regarding images

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz You recently removed two images I had uploaded on pages of 'Ashok Malhotra' and 'Anoop Malhotra" because it seems they did not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. I apologize for the error. I am new to Wikipedia while you are an experienced editor, please could you suggest what changes are required so as to make the images acceptable if you feel they will help to improve the articles? If not we can leave it as it is. There was an older image on the former page that I removed before adding the new one, or perhaps should I replace that? In the meantime reading your comment that - 'wikipedia only' is not acceptable, I have removed that condition from the image pages. It was something additional I padded by mistake not realizing its implication. The family had given the images for use in Wikipedia on my request for use in these articles or where ever else that article is used but it seems they could not be bothered to release it elsewhere in public domain first. I shall await your response before doing anything or jsut leave things as they stand. Thanks. appreciate the work you do at wikipedia as your medals suggest. it is a useful resource for the world. Regards Shyamu111--Shyamu111 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ken McPherson

So what's wrong with http://www.ccfpa.co.uk/?p=29233? Not to mention it was asked at OTRS to be added. If you like I can ask the OP to show a death certificate - because unlike most countries, death certificates can be obtained by anyone in the UK and so are verifiable. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I found a proper newspaper ref as well. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Madrid and Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía 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. Coldcreation (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.126.210 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-related

This doesnt seem compliant for all uses. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit

Your talk page edit summary gave me a lol few moments. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring Western painting

Your recent editing history at Western painting 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. Coldcreation (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Ronald McDonald

It's this user, who admits they are doing it here, as well as how awful they think you, me and Wikipedia in general is. And yet they continue to edit here. *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Laura Summer

I recently made an edit for Mark Evanier on Wikipedia. He also asked if the Laura Summer page you have in the draft status could be added to the mainspace. Can you help him out? Retrogamer (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Lana Rhoades

Why blank it? Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Because BLP violations, such as the single unsourced sentence here, are not allowed in Wikipedia, regardless of namespace. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the process of making the article. At least give me a bit of time to add sources etc. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This bio was deleted before, and the deletion upheld at DRV. Recreating it with crap sourcing and BLP violations is not constructive editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:NWDMNSNS11971.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

regarding your fresh edits

Sorry to contact you here, I wasn't much interested to add that section at all which you deleted , But as the news on the internet clearly specifies that , I added it without any interest , If you think those controversies are useful to Wikipedia Universe anyway else or suitable for the artist who makes that article , then , you may revert the edit , I will add source in free time ! But wait for 24 hrs before deleting them again ! Crispgatoglitz (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Crispgatoglitz: You were WP:BOLD when added that content to the article, but Wikipedia is not news and not everything about Fadnis needs to be added to Manjari Fadnis. Hullaballo Wolfwitz was correct in removing that unsourced content per WP:BLP and WP:BLPSOURCES; so, if you wish to further discuss this then you should do so at Talk:Manjari Fadnis. Just start a new section and explain why you feel this content should be included. Also, it's your WP:BURDEN to add supporting citations to content when you add the content the first time or it can be removed by any any editor; this is particulary true for content about living persons seen as contentous. So, don't tell other editors to wait 24 hours before removing content; instead, you wait until you have all of the sources ready to go before adding the content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Lorrie Collins.jpg

Hi HW. You've got some pretty keen spidey-sense when it comes to non-free bio images, so I'm wondering if you'd assess this file. Lorrie Collins just died, and a non-free was added for identification purposes to the article. I believe that was done in good faith, but her career did span a number of years and I'm wondering whether there might be something of her flosting around on Ebay or somewhere which didn't have it's copyright removed or might otherwise be PD for some reason. Maybe even a Flick'r image somewhere released under a CC license Wikipedia can accept. I've started a discussion about this on the uploader's user talk at User talk:CAWylie#File:Lorrie Collins.jpg, so perhaps you can provide some suggestions there. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you input here. The file was reuploaded to Commons under a free license, so things appear resolved. Was wondering if you'd mind helping out with an image for Benny Hill. The one currently be used has been tagged for deletion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Benny Hill.JPG. A non-free was uploaded to replace the Comomns file, but was deleted per WP:G7 after I tagged the file for rfu. I'm wondering if you can suggest any good places where another free equivalent of Hill might be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hillbillyholiday

Despite getting blocked on your other account Hillbillyholiday and still edit warring with your pointless edits which add nothing - how are you still not getting blocked on this account? Incredible. Must be clever with your proxies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingrayvibes (talk • contribs)

I note that user:Hillbillyholiday is indeed currently indeffed. Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) And the point of your noting this fact is to assist a WP:SPA whose only edit was to cast aspersions and accuse another editor of WP:SOCK without providing any diffs or anything else in support? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC); [Note: Striking previous post since it was an over reaction on my part as has been explained at User talk:Marchjuly#Please discuss. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)]

Marilyn Michaels

Stop your edit warring on the Marilyn Michaels article. If it is not vandalism, it is indistinguishable from it. The article is sourced with reliable third-party sources, and contains plain facts with sources, and almost no adjectives. Whether some people were once sock puppets is irrelevant. What the article looked like years ago is irrelevant. I have explained my reasons on the talk page, specifically. You have not. You have only given vague generalities, and made NO attempt to correct whatever it is that bothers you, simply blanking a performer's entire career, which is a clear violation of editing protocol. I suspect it's personal, since your actions make no sense whatsoever. You blanking the career leaves an article where a reader would have no idea why the article even exists. You have never explained your reasoning, if there is any reasoning. Carlo (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop being a dishonest jackass. The crapfest you have repeatedly reinstated was rejected by consensus, and you stand alone in proxying for the banned/blocked sockfarmer who wrote it. The original author has been caught in repeated lies, including the brazen falsehood that the subject or a TV show she "starred" in won an Emmy Award -- even though she didn't star in the show (and didn't even appear in more than half the episodes) and the show was only nominated for, but did not win, a technical Emmy for a single episode the subject did not appear in. (And despite its established falsity, Carlo has repeatedly restored that claim). Now stay off my talk page until you're willing to discuss matters honestly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I totally relate to what you're going through. I've had to deal with a lot of unreasonable and stupid people through all forms of Wikipedia (DYK, AFD, GA, and so on) who have a zero understanding of how notability and Wikipedia articles work and I wanted to say I'm sorry to have to deal with such terrible users. I'm on your side and I'm wishing the best of luck to ya, buddy. editorEهեইдအ😎 03:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dana Plato image

Hi HW. Do you think a suitable free image of Dana Plato can be found to replace the non-free screenshot currently being used in main infobox? There is actually a free image of Plato already being used in the article, so I tagged the non-free with {{rfu}}; however, it was declined because free one's quality isn't very good. So, I've started looking around on eBay, etc. for another possible free equivalent and found some, but I'm not sure how to check their respective copyright statuses. There are a couple of images which look like they might have been taken prior to 1978, so maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} or some other type of PD is possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I've become convinced that, at least for US performers active enough before the visible-copyright-notice requirement was repealed, there are almost certainly free images out there; it's just a question of digging long enough. A cursory ebay search turns up truckloads of images without notices, but not demonstrating original publication. (And an unhealthy number of them are jailbait cheesecake) But this one looks plausibly free [1], but needs dewatermarking, and I suspect there are more. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that bit of digging. "PD-US-no notice" seems to only be for content published prior to 1978, but the number of possibilities would greatly increase if PR shots/stills from the Diff'rent Strokes years might also be PD. As you stated, there are some "jailbait cheesecake images" out there that probably are not suitable; there might also be a mugshot photo of her from later in life which might be PD as well, but again there's WP:MUG which might deserve consideration even though she died in 1999. However, something from 1978 (when the show first aired) until 1985 when it was canceled, might be appropriate. Just curious about the one you found. Do you think the bar code at the top of back of the photo might be considered a copyright notice of some sort? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Image Removal on Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj Page

Hey! Hullaballo Wolfowitz. Please explain about your edits regarding removal of the image from Sant Rajinder Singh Ji Maharaj page. The image is approved by Wikipedia as it is a screenshot from a webpage; here's the link for the same- https://skrm.sos.org/gallery/tw/?id=3 And if there's is a problem with it, you are very kindly requested to help and guide me on how can it be improved. --sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• WP:NFCC, our policy regarding nonfree/copyrighted content, rather strictly prohibits the use of copyrighted images of living persons, absent unusual circumstances not present or claimed in this case. Images are presumed copyrighted unless an applicable license or release can be demonstrated, and the front page of the source website states "© 2018 Science of Spirituality. All rights reserved". No one has "approved: this image for use. If there is a suitable license on the source website, you must cite it exactly on the file page. Frankly, I doubt such a license exists, given the homepage copyright notice. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for your guidance, will keep this in mind.--sheenamalhotra182 (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop excising images with the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox"

You have been using the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox" to justify excising images for a long time. Yet, honestly is there anything in WP:NFCC, or any other policy, to justify an excision, on that justification?

Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. I suggest that your general practice of simply excising images, rather than discussing what you see as questionable non-free rationales is not in the best interest of the project.

I strongly encourage you to engage with the uploader, unless they have a proven record of vandalism. We have no training manual. You risk chasing away good faith new contributors, or exhausting the patience of good faith experienced contributors, when you act precipitously. Geo Swan (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-free images in biographies of living people are generally prohibited, excepting some extreme circumstances, and are subject to removal. If the image is Non-free, the subject is alive, then a free image can likely be sourced or created, so the Non-free image gets removed. If you don't like this, you need to take it up with the WMF or suggest a change to the relevant policies and guidelines at the village pump, and given where the bar is set, this is unlikely to change. For a non-free image of a living person to be used, there needs to be a VALID fair use rationale. And there are almost none for living people. And while a Non-free image is being used in an article without a valid reason, there are legal concerns. Which is why they are removed until one can be provided. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to Only in death's cogent comments, except that since an infobox image is intended as a general illustration, rather than related to a specific point in the article. the possible arguments for using a nonfree image there are particularly weak. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• If you think you have a valid, policy-based reason why a non-free image shouldn't be used, then using the edit summary "nonfree image in BLP infobox" instead of that reason is a very very bad idea. If you think you have a valid, policy-based reason, then use that as your edit summary. Making it hard for a good faith uploader to understand why you think their upload was a mistake is a time-wasting act of incivility. Please also bear in mind that, like the rest of us, you too are subject to normal human fallibility. You could be the one whose judgement is off. I think you were dead wrong to be so dogged in your attempts to remove the image of Florin Fodor. And I think you were making a big mistake to justify your excision because the image was in an infobox. Geo Swan (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeatedly posting tendentious nonsense on my talk page is a very very very very bad idea. I have been using the same basic edit summary for years, hundreds upon hundreds of times (actually more than 1500 times). You appear to be the only editor who objects to it. You are very very likely to be the one whose judgement is off. I strongly suggest you heed your own warning about exhausting the patience of good faith experienced contributors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It is in times like these that I believe you should reference my essay on teachable moments User:Geo_Swan/opinions/Teachable_moments.142.158.153.179 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Trying to work out an image for a lede

I took your : as hint and am trying to work out an image for a lede (I didn't even notice the : and assumed I had inserted it during one of my edits, just kept on going with the talk page discussion). We need that image on the talk page for the moment. It is context during the discussion, right now.

Can you please hold off on the big hammer until I can get consensus on another lede image. After the outcome you are free to work your will, but please.

Welcome back, anyways. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding image

Hello Hullaballoo Wolfowitz,
Does this image's license suitable for that of a living person category?
Thank you, --Gpkp (u • t • c) 16:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The license does not appear to be valid. The source website (URL misspelled on the file page, BTW) carries a standard copyright notice both on its front page and on its photo gallery page. You need to provide a link to the exact page where the photo is licensed. Otherwise, the rights owner should provide a license via the WP:OTRS process. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. --Gpkp (u • t • c) 03:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

.........Just...

.....passing...........through..... Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Cheryle Chagnon-Greyeyes, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't remove the photo unless you have one to replace it with. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Frank Donga

Hello The image on the article "Frank Donga" was uploaded on the claim of Fair Use, which is acceptable. You deleted it for the reason "nonfree image in BLP infobox" I would revert your change pending an explanation to this cause Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pst. Bukkie (talk • contribs) 16:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NFC#UUI and point 1 of WP:NFCC - where the subject is still alive (with very very few exceptions) a non-free picture is not allowed on a biography of a living person, as a free picture can be sourced. Wikipedia applies a stricter standard than normal fair use allows. The key part of NFCC is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." - for living people, it has been determined that photos of subjects who are still alive and not under extreme conditions (long term incarceration, dictators of north korea etc) a free photo could be created. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi Pst. Bukkie. A non-free image of Donga cannot be used per Wikipedia non-free content use criterion #1 for the reasons given above by Only in death does duty end; so, I have tagged this file for deletion per WP:F7. Moreover, it appears that this is a reupload of a previously deleted file of the same name (see User talk:Pst. Bukkie#Replaceable fair use File:Frank Donga.jpg) which was deleted for the same reason back in April by an administrator named Explicit.

When you find out that a file you uploaded has been deleted it can be a bit of a shock, especially if you're not sure exactly why. If a file you've upload has been deleted, it's always best to assume there was a reason for it; so, click on the file's link (it will be a red link) and try and see why. If you still are n't sure, then the file's page will show the name of the administrator who deleted it and it's perfectly OK to ask that person or someone else (perhaps at the Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) to explain why. Pretty much worst thing you can do, however, is simply reupload the same file (or a similar file) which has the same problem or problems. Not only will this surely result in the re-deletion of the new version, but it will also give others the impression that you're not interested in complying with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you repeat this type of things too many times, an adminstrator is likely going to see it as being disruptive and may take further action to prevent you from doing it anymore. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"nonfree image in BLP infobox"

why did you revert my edit with such a vague summary? editing wikipedia should be a learning experience. this isn't elementary school where you're just told "you're wrong".

after rereading the policy based on your second revert, I get why the picture has no place in the article. but that wasn't apparent to me on my first read, and it certainly wasn't "obvious". I should not have to persist to find out what I did wrong. —mountainhead / ? 19:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

and in scrolling back just a few sections, I found that I'm not the first editor to be bothered by this. —mountainhead / ? 19:52, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Book cover image in co-author's wiki article

See Dominik Bartmanski. Also, there's a notice of an upcoming 2019 co-authored book cited only to the publisher's blurb. Softlavender (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

wp:3RR November 2018

Hello, you are in violation of the wp:3RR rule on both Siouxsie Sioux and the file "Siouxsie-Creaturescolor", you did 5 reverts, each time. The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page. Woovee (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That's nuttin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz once did 127 reverts in seven minutes in an edit war that several battalions of us were having at Poppy. Ten administrators tried to stop us, but got caught up in friendly fire (and that's why Wikipedia is low on active admins to this day. true story). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg has been deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC#1 per WP:F7: so, it appears that at least one administrator agrees with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment of the file. Just because a non-free has been used in an article for a long-time doesn't mean that it's non-free use automatically complies with (or in this case complied with) Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it could also just as easily mean that file should have been deleted/removed a long time ago but nobody experienced with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy noticed until now.

Finally, I'm not sure what anything at Poppy (singer) has to do with this particular image, and it seems you are just using this as an opportunity to pile on and perhaps rekindle an old dispute. Moreover, it doesn't look as if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has edited that article a single time and there's nothing about Hullaballoo Wolfowitz doing some major edit warring on Talk:Poppy (singer); so, maybe you're thinking of another editor or another article. Anyway, you might want to clarify this at AN3 since your post is being cited as evidence of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's edit warring (or at least his alleged history of edit warring). -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

It is? I'll have a look. It was friendly satire, do you really think he reverted 127 reverts in seven minutes? We've kidded each other in the past, or maybe in the present or the future. One of those. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2018 (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. Thank you.

Image of multiple book covers

Can you assess File:HenryGordonBooks001.jpg and also its use in the author's article? Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) That's a Commons file, so there's not much that can be done here; however, it appears to be an obvious derivative work which means that not only the copyright of the photo but also the book covers themselves need to be taken into account. The uploader can claim the photo as "own work" and release it under a free license if they choose to do so, but they can claim copyright ownership over the book covers if they aren't the copyright holder of them. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion; if you'd rather do a c:COM:DR instead, then feel free. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I've removed the image since the violation is indisputable, and suggested an alternative approach. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks all. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Velvet Underground & Nico release delays

These unfounded accusations made by Lou Reed and Sterling Morrison against Frank Zappa have been published in several sources and the source specifically states that no evidence has been proven that Zappa did, in fact, intend to delay the release of the banana album, so that he could release Freak Out! first. 1.129.105.236 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Can you please elucidate the rationale behind your today's edits, as to Robert Silverberg stuff? FWIW, the discussion was closed, in favor of the merge.Apologies, if I am missing something obvious.Thanks,∯WBG^converse 19:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you please show the courtesy and civility required to let people finish working before officiously demanding that other editors justify their editing. A non-admin close of a discussion that's been moribund for nearly a year and a half, based on a vote count rather than weighing arguments, several of which were defective on their face, is not exactly routine, is at best questionable -- especially when the product contains obvious policy violations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alpha 2 (Robert Silverberg anthology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faith of Our Fathers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Shut Up And Eat Your Snowshoes, Geo

Geo Swan believes he is the Edit Summary Sherriff of Wikipedia, and has repeatedly complained about an edit summary that I have used over 1500 times, and that no other had objected to. The whole matter was discussed at some length above, and nobody else supported Geo's position. Nevertheless, Geo brings it up incessantly, here and elsewhere. It's very hard to take Geo seriously, because in the underlying content disputes he has made multiple reversions and changes without any edit summary at all. Geo's tendentious behaviour is most uncivil, even if he avoids using magic words. I will no longer respond to his repetitive nonsense here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When you removed File:Ali_Musa_DaqDuq's_forged_ID_documents.jpg did you not notice this note? Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, once again, I encourage you, in the very strongest possible terms, to comply with the policies and conventions that require you to be polite. Surely you know you are not entitled to use insulting edit summaries, like the one you used in this recent edit? "Stop purposefully playing stupid, Geo Swan. That discussion was over whether the image could be transferred to Commons as free or kept locally as nonfree, It in no way supports using the image in an article without a valid nonfree use rationale, since removal is called for by WP:NFCCE." Similarly, in this edit you characterized my motives as a "spiteful rejection" of consensus. I know you have got to know this kind of language is not acceptable here. You are not a genius, who is not obliged to answer questions, and explain what they think they are doing. Neither am I. Even Jimbo Wales can't expect that he won't be asked to explain himself. I know I have asked you to consider the points I made in Are you a genius many times. I ask you to consider those points, again. I took a look at your last 500 edit summaries. About ten percent of your recent edits have removed nonfree images with an edit summary stating you were doing so because a nonfree image was included in the article's infobox. I failed to find any wikidocument stating nonfree images can't be used in infoboxes. I think I told you this. I don't think you ever explained why your edit summaries contained this claim. Hullaballow Wolfowitz, I have got to be frank here. You make enough assertions that you excised images because they were "obvious" violations of NFCC, where your gut feeling proved wrong, that you should no longer excise images based on your gut feeling. Your gut feelings are not sufficiently reliable. If you placed speedy tags on nonfree images, (1) another set of eyes, that of the closing administrator, would look at your concern; (2) the individual who uploaded the image would get a clear indication of where they were going wrong, if the closing administrator backs up your concern; and (3) if you are the one who is off-base, you get a clear indication of where you went wrong. I strongly encourage you to stop simply excising nonfree images. Images you excise are deleted after seven days. Images you tag with a speedy will be deleted after seven days -- if the closing administrator backs you up. So there is no speed advantage to excision. Geo Swan (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Chrismouse:)

so, just where Chrismousies hidden?

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, hope you have a great festive season. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Honolulu Star Newspaper photo

I didn't notice two things, first, that there have been some changes to the deletion guidelines (I am reviewing them) and second was your edit summary after my first revert referring specifically to NFCC#2. I will look into both as well as your other concerns before making any further reverts.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made a number of changes to the article to address your concerns regarding what you believed were unattributed quotes. They were actually attributed to a newspaper article but that link expired and I have found the current link to that article as well as adding additional book sourcing to the contentious claim made about a living person.

The image itself is mentioned in the article in detail, not just about what the image depicts. A similar image by a different author/photographer had been uploaded by other users previously with, as you state, spurious rational but for a different article and a different rational. That image does have a true market value that Ed Greevy holds for Native Hawaiian activism and his images are regularly used in that market through specific books about the Hawaiian culture and contemporary Hawaiian activism. He is well known for that and is easily demonstrated. This image is from a newspaper which has published this image in multiple book publications ranging from geography to history. Its use falls within Non Free Content Criteria.

I am going to be re-adding the image shortly after I finish completing my comments on the article talk page to address your concerns and attempting to strengthen the rational however, since you might still not agree, please do not delete but nominate for deletion discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There used to be a specific page to nominate non free images for deletion. That no longer seems to be the case. Controversial deletion discussions for non free images now seem to be made at: Wikipedia:Files for discussion now.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

One last thing (sorry for all the posts), I believe that this image does not fit criteria for speedy deletion and I have made an honest attempt in good faith to comply to our policies and guidelines as well as you concerns. I believe you are also working in good faith so I ask that after I add the image back, if you still disagree and believe it is not to non free content criteria, that we take a formal nomination discussion route That we discuss it together at the talk page between the two of us..(perhaps either of us can convince the other. If not, then perhaps we need a more formal discussion). Thanks you!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I got sick and was unable to return to this. Since I did not return the image to the article it has been deleted as orphaned. I see no major reason to attempt to return it after deletion, at least not in the near future.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GiantSnowman 14:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

"treated like dirt"

I just blocked a vandal who used that catchphrase of yours in article space and edit summaries. I scrubbed most of it because I consider that a kind of harassment (impersonating/implicating you). zzuuzz, should I scrub it from their own talk page too? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: 300Kb of anything repetitive is fairly disruptive, but I'm not bothered either way at this time. I see there's already a little note on Ponyo's talk page. That LTA by the way, if it's the same, would be this one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh my--another prince of humanity. I was trying to compare but the last one was from 2016. Davey2010, you may have an interest in this. zzuuzz, it was pointed out to me that recently retired User:Flooded them with hundreds was also borrowing HW's signature. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Doc, Looking at Ponyos talkpage I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed! ....., Never heard of The Suix or their socks but as I say given the sigs and timing it has to be more than a mere coincidence. –Davey2010^Talk 18:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The two being just days apart certainty sounds fishy to me. Glad that others have also taken note of this. funplussmart (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is triggering me. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, after having read the ANI comments and a bunch of other stuff, I'm thinking that it's most likely one of those trolls who keep a close eye on our community in order to exploit our weak spots and stir the shit pot. One of those a-holes like Vote X or whatever--trolling impersonators using proxies and playing us. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm staring to think so too. funplussmart (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Rodney On the ROQ Vol III featuring Olivia Barash.jpg

The image in question belongs on at least two of the three pages. Please take it to a discussion before unilaterally trying to have it deleted. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 18:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have a better idea. You should review WP:NFC, WP:NFCC, and WP:ROLLBACK and stop committing obvious violations of the governing policies and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Please stop driving edit wars on multiple articles. --evrik ^(talk) 03:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Major Emmerdale storylines image removal

Please explain your rationale behind the image removals before I revert your edits. The images, as I see, have usage rationales (albeit all non-free, as television screenshots), and mostly been in use for 10+ years. Can you offer a fair explanation so that either alternatives can be sourced, or the originals restored? Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As I stated clearly in my edit summaries: first, the uses fails NFCC#8, because the storyline information can be adequately conveyed by text alone, and because the use rationales are generic and invalid -- conspicuously so; consider the "Tom King" image, which is justified by "It's handy to have an image to add to a description of the article", a rationale with no basis in NFC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing about a soap opera, or indeed any television programme, is that the viewer (as opposed to reader) understands the nature of the scenerio by watching the events, as opposed to reading them. NFC#8 does state that the images should be "used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", which given the text is describing events that occured relevant to the visual imagery, I personally feel would satisfy the criterion. I take your point about some of the image rationales being less than ideal, but perhaps it would be appropriate to correct these, than to simply obliterate any imagery. I take your view to a certain extent, but can't fully get on board with the conclusion you reached. If you're firm in your view, perhaps it could be passed through RFC (if anything, to ensure that other editors can see consensus one way or the other)? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've removed quite a few such images from other articles uncontroversially. I see no reason for me to "correct" defective use rationales when I believe the uses do not conform to NFC policy. If you are determined to contest the removal, I suggest you follow the standard process and take the matter to WP:FFD, but I suggest you first review similar past discussions there. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I am "determined to contest", but do have reservations about the removal of every image, based on your own opinion of policy, without a discussion taking place. Frankly, I am not expressing concern pertaining to "other articles", particularly if I am unaware of what they are (and it would be an excessive use of time to invest in querying any others you have applied such logic to). FFD does state: "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised." Based on this, my understanding (which may be incorrect, as I have not been previously involved with FFD), would be for the concerned party to list the images for discussion, then act upon whatever decision is reached. I take the view this may be the least controversial approach, particularly as it would allow for a reference point if future edits restore the images against consensus. I don't feel strongly enough that I would contest any potential consensus for removal of all images, but feel given the quantity (and in article percentage terms, 100%), it should at least have some discussion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 23 February 2019 (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. Thank you. --evrik ^(talk) 04:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Note that even before I responded to this complaint, it resulted in the OP being blocked. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Guillaume Morissette.jpg

Hi, I ended up on in essence undoing your last edit on Guillaume Morissette. Non-free should be no problem for a book cover with a fair use rationale explicitly mentioning the target page and the purpose (book cover); I've seen similar fair use rationales on lots of books and albums. BLP + book in one article is slightly odd, but even together it's barely enough for a stub at the moment, splitting the page is no option.
Just revert me if you have a reason for it, I only saw the "non-free orphaned file deletion warning" on the talk page of the uploader, because I edited this talk page for an unrelated reason, and considered the issue as a "low-hanging fruit" (unused => used, all is well if it ends well). –84.46.53.71 (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Remotely related (from my point of view), if there's a general problem with nothingmajor.com not limited to Sasha Grey, this site is used as reference on two other pages. –84.46.52.31 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#File:Guillaume Morissette.jpg. –84.46.52.203 (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal life section of Ireland Baldwin's article

Hi,

I'd like to discuss the removal of the personal life section of Baldwin's page. I think that it just needs some tweaking to show the significance to Baldwin's life and career. for the time being I have removed that section until a resolution could be reached.

Thanks for your time, Bunnies959 (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)bunnies959

Orphaned non-free image File:Alan E. Nourse (ca. 1963).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alan E. Nourse (ca. 1963).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Jussie Smollett image

Hi Hullaballo Wolfwitz. I think this was a good catch on your part since it not only has NFCC issues, but also WP:MUG issues. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The file was re-added, but I've removed it again and prodded it for deletion. If it's re-added again and deprodded, then it's probably best to start a discussion about it at FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Images

Recently you have removed File: Minoo Mumtaz..jpg and Karnail Rana.jpg from their respective pages. Sir as there is no other free image available in both cases as of now, I have added them. These images also qualify in fair image criterion of Wikipedia. Regards. Vrishchik (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Do not add these images back. One has already been deleted for noncompliance with WP:NFCC policy. Absent special circumstances not even claimed here, nonfree (fair use) images may not be used to illustrate the person's biography. This holds even if a free image has not been currently located. Read WP:NFCC amd WP:NFC for more detailed explanations. The governing principles were established by the Wikimedia Foundation, and may not be weakened by user consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)