User talk:Swancookie

Welcome!

Hello, Swancookie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

MBisanzBot (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BCTBHScarling .jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BCTBHScarling .jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

Hi, I'm being bold and introducing myself. My name is Christian Hejnal and I play in a band called Scarling. with my wife Jessicka. I've noticed there's been a little unnecessary mud slinging in her direction by a disgruntled person. I just wanted to put it out there that if you had any issues with any pages related to my wife, my band, our roommate Lisa Leveridge or my co-worker Rickey Goodling, myself, please don't hesitate to come to me directly. I'm happy to help.

I am new to wikipedia and currently trying to get familiar with all the rules and protocol here. I believe whole heartily in a neutral stance but also would like things written about any of the previously mentioned pages to be factual. I'm about to do an interview with a third party publication to set some things straight. Until then I just wanted to introduce myself.

take care, Xtian1313 (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! welcome to wiki! Swancookie (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Scarling.2.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Scarling.2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Christian Joy

A tag has been placed on Christian Joy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with this. Swancookie (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations

Stop reinserting text without sources meeting WP:RS, overly promotional material, and quotations that aren't found on the cited sources and/or are cited to websites controlled by the article's subject. Your continuous reinsertion of this material raises serious questions as to the good faith of your editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Blanking sourced sections! I am trying to improve this article. An Example: High Fructose is NOT a blog. It's a well respected low brow art site and states that she was a muse for the show. You keep removing it. You are constantly editing Jessicka and her husband's Christian's page. There is no doubt you have a serious bias with editing these articles.

I'd rather not deal with you. Next step is to bring in a neutral third part admin. And Not Rickey, Big Daddy or Bali.

Swancookie (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't post uncivil comments impugn the neutrality/motives of editors who disagree with you. It reinforces the impression that, if not a sock puppet, you're editing in concert with a group of individuals associated with the article subjects who have repeatedly refused to conform with Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take our own advice! "a group of individuals associated with the article subjects who have repeatedly refused to conform with Wikipedia policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP." Don't assume! You have a bias against Xtian 1313 yet you edit his article to no end, how is that policy? I am not a sock Puppet (accusation???) I just do not agree with you! Swancookie (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting an admin in here. I refuse to deal with you as you have a clear bias when editing this article. Swancookie (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

I need help. I need a neutral third patient administrator who is not already involved in some of the bias that is going on here. I'd prefer to deal with somebody who is well versed in LGBT issues. Swancookie (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've converted your request for help into a request for admin help so it'll reach the attention of the right people. If you don't receive a response quickly enough, you may wish to post on the administrator's noticeboard or the BLP noticeboard.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given you are the subject of an ANI post, you are going to get more than enough admin eyes on your issues. --Step hen 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dealing with that now. I need a third opinion. Swancookie (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT/content Question

I'd like to start a new article about a LGBT artist. The only problem is a lot of the press I have on them is in actual magazines. How does one prove notability if a lot of the person's press (40%?) is in actual gay publications/magazines not online press. What would you suggest I do? Thanks. Swancookie (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at User talk:Allstarecho. Frank | talk 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Question/response

Copied over from my talkpage so you have another perspective to your question.

I'd like to start a new article about a LGBT artist. The only problem is a lot of the press I have on them is in actual magazines. How does one prove notability if a lot of the person's press (40%?) is in actual gay publications/magazines not online press. What would you suggest I do? Thanks. Swancookie (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're in luck, sources do not have to be available online and many, most?, aren't. Use the template at Template:Citation#Citing journals, newspapers, magazines, or other periodicals and fill in every thing you have. Be sure to put the entire cite within ref tags like <ref> (full citation here) </ref>. Good luck! -- Banjeboi 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. excellent. Thank you so much for pointing me in the right direction. Before I create a new article I want to make sure the person is notable. Doing a little fact checking and wiki checking as well. Would you mind terribly to check if I'm doing this correctly? I'm going to experiment with a few other articles first. Just to get the hang of using the citation template. How would I go about citing this link? [1]

I actually have that Seconds magazine.

below is an example of what I'm doing. How would I think insert it into this article? Jessicka

Price, Simon (September 4, 2005), "Scarling. So Long, Scarecrow", The Independent, vol. The Independent, London, Uk, p. 16 {{citation}}: Text "issuse" ignored (help)

Thank so much for being helpful! Swancookie (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent one looks fine. The Geocities link is not as Geocities is notorious for hosting unreliable stuff. It may be a blacklisted link in which case just leave off the weblink itself and add a note to the talkpage (for future editors) that Seconds magazine text of article reprinted at [2]. In the cite itself, if the system will allow the link to stay, put a note "text of article reprinted" right after the link. -- Banjeboi 15:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent "link" is not fine; it's a phony citation. Despite what the text says, the link is not to the Independent's site, but to the Scarling site. The articles where Swancookie is edit-warring with me are riddled with phony citations like this, where the links don't actually go to the sources listed (which appear to be reliable), but to sources controlled by the article subjects or their friends, which fail WP:RS by large and indisputable margins. Swancookie's repeated reinsertion of these fake citations is a textbook case of disruptive and deceptive editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent one, IMHO is still fine. It would be better to do a google search and see if you can get the original, if it's after 2004 it's likely still online or in the internet archives but If not the cite should have a qualifier like i previous stated "text archived at Band's webpage"; if you think about it we would readily accept the newspaper cite without any internet link but it's much more convenient to have the text available. Absent any proof of wrongdoing we extend good faith the band - like so many other groups - is simply collecting media mentions in one spot. That's quite common. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned.User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has a huge bias with the article Jessicka. I believe that he is tearing it apart in order to nominate it for speedy deletion. If you look at his talk page you'll see he's had several unresolved issues with the subject Jessicka's husband Christian Hejnal and now he is editing their articles (and any articles that mention them) mercilessly. I'm not being disruptive or deceptive, I assure you. I just want to see the article be the best it can be User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz can not say the same. [3] You can see how he over reacts asking for a block above. Swancookie (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benjiboi- I need a neutral third party on this one. I'm afraid to even start another article as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be breathing down my neck because he has some weird issue with me. I didn't join wikipedia to be harassed and argue with aggressive editors who spout policy even when they are proven wrong. I'm trying to better.

Any help/words or wisdom would be greatly appreciated. Swancookie (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you prbably should disengage on this one for a while, just because things have gotten heated up. If you want to keep tab on things then maybe drop a note to someone neutral or at the ANI or admin board to look at see if something needs to be addressed. Swancookie, they likely mean very well but are being a bit heavy handed. This, oddly, will serve you better by helping your editing be stronger and more in keeping with policy. Seriously, there is no point adding junk that will just be removed within days/weeks anyway so it's better to make sure it's strong from the get-go. Trust me, even if you get everything right it will still be picked on and screwed with by someone so just press on and do your best. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to contact Hullaballo in good faith, but he ignores me. He deletes my section on his talk page. [4] Also if you read his talk page it shows that he has issues with Christian Hejnal = User:Xtian1313. Editing Christin & his wife Jessicka's page this way is just bad form in my humble opinion.

But moving on, may I put back the citations that Hullaballoo removed? They are on the band's site but they aren't phony I own the AP the quote is from. I could scan it. LOL! Swancookie (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just leave them alone and move on, if you left a note and they deleted it we assume they read it. Nuff said. I would also go ahead and put back in the deleted content if you feel the sourcing is fine etc. They may simply not care for the cite style but as I wrote above using a band's archive of media blurbs is acceptable. If you can link to the original articles it would be better but don't stress. -- Banjeboi 20:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Ah good to know. Seriously thanks again for walking me through this stuff. It's been hard dealing with certain editors here and I feel like the more I know, the more I can be an asset to this site.

Would you mind looking at Jessicka and Christian Hejnal???? If you give them the OK I'll feel more confident to start a few new articles here. Swancookie (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on Jessicka I did some basic clean-up. The bisexual line isn't well worded or referenced. Wordpress (as a rule) and blogs that aren't quite reliable should be avoided. Having stated that I have no reason to dispute so I'll leave it to you to see if there are other sources for this. Websites, only one to put in the infobox should be hers, not the bands although those could be put into the External links sections. Overall the tone sounds too informal/promotional and therefore less than credible. I would address that as that will attract others to tag or change things. On Christian Hejnal, same issues plus rework the whole film career as it alludes that they've been in all those films when instead it looks like they crewed them (which isn't bad, just different). So instead of film career make it just career and explain the progression of what they did. Filmography should be ditched, that's for actors. Some of that could be woven into the career section and you could moved the entire list to the talkpage for future reference. -- Banjeboi 16:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the clean-up. I agree with all of your changes. I agree in the Hejnal article that filmography should just be left out. Reads better that way. There's an IMDB link, that should suffice. I'll work a little more on the Jessicka aricle. I'll remove any peacock, hopefully that will help. :)

Oh, last question (for now) I swear. What's the policy on linking from a person's .com biography? Say a biography on Jessicka.com-? There it says she is openly bisexual. Thanks 100 tiimes thanks! Swancookie (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is rather useless I'm afraid. The good news is that a person's .com page is perfect for a BLP (biography of living person) as a person is considered an expert on themselves. If she says she's bisexual on her page then we can cite that. We use caution though about repeating any exceptional claims. If she wrote, for instance, that she had the top-selling single of 2007 we'd sniff it as odd and say it was an exceptional claim needing exceptional sourcing. -- Banjeboi 19:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK great. I'll find that section on her .com. Does that work for bands too? If a band says they are currently recording on their.com. Is that a usable source for wikipedia? Swancookie (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's more NPOV to write - according to the band's website they started a new album project in June 2009, etc. -- Banjeboi 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'll try adding all of that next week when I have time. Again thanks. Enjoy your weekend! Swancookie (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jeordie White

Hi, I think you have the wrong person, I only remove/revert vandalism [5], [6] & [7], I think you are looking for User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who is either removing or asking for reference for every other word within the article [8], [9], and also User:Snuppy [10]. They are the one's that seem to have a problem with the article. Doktor Wilhelm 19:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted them. Thanks! Swancookie (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I hope something can be sorted out, it seems like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is attempting to udermine several articles (all connected to each other), so I've a feeling that an Admin will need to be asked for help with this, specially since adding anything back into the article will likely just lead Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removing anything re-added without question or attempt to find better sources/references. Doktor Wilhelm 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will. But not because I am trying to "undermine" articles, but because WP:BLP directs users to delete material sourced from self-published blogs from biographies of living persons (except in certain cases where the article subject is the author/publisher of the blog, none of which apply here.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, It's getting really really bad. Not really sure what to do. Any advice? Swancookie (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, try that below and you may get an admin... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't get an admin, it got me. But I've converted the {{help}} to {{adminhelp}} for you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

I've responded on Talk:Jeordie White. Snuppy 01:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

adding: WP:BLP, an official Wikipedia policy, directs that all questionable, unsourced or poorly material should be deleted immediately, and that "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources." I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm trying to make sure this article meets a basic standard. Snuppy 01:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I didn't think you were being a dick at all. What's the ruling on "blogs" here. Why are some Ok and some aren't? Just want to hear what your thoughts are.

Thanks, Swancookie (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some blogs and other self published sources are acceptable "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. That is from WP:SPS. Forgive me, but I'm nulling the template (if you need more help, just post it again). Killiondude (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverts

You appeared to have made your 6th revert on the article. You may wish to revert. Soxwon (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect. There's been discussion about that revision above and another editor said it's a keep. It's not o phony site nor is it a blog. Scroll above to see. Or read here [11] I'm waiting for the actual article to show back up from the newspaper the Independent. Thanks, Swancookie (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm referring to Jessicka, you've now reverted 5 times, a violation of WP:3RR. Soxwon (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I'm showing you where another editor and I had a discussion about the revert. They said it should be kept. Understand I am a (newer) editor and familiarizing myself on wiki practice and policy. I appreciate your patience. I'm not a vandal.Swancookie (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, however, WP:3RR doesn't apply to vandals. Other users saying it's ok doesn't make edit-warring ok. Were you aware of WP:3RR? Soxwon (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not. Please understand I truly wasn't being a vandal. Swancookie (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You have been reported to AN/I Soxwon (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm being reported as I consulted with another editor about the revert and they agreed it should be kept. Swancookie (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above, WP:3RR is only covered in a few cases, WP:BLP violations and vandalism being pretty much it. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Independent one, IMHO is still fine. It would be better to do a google search and see if you can get the original, if it's after 2004 it's likely still online or in the internet archives but If not the cite should have a qualifier like i previous stated "text archived at Band's webpage"; if you think about it we would readily accept the newspaper cite without any internet link but it's much more convenient to have the text available. Absent any proof of wrongdoing we extend good faith the band - like so many other groups - is simply collecting media mentions in one spot. That's quite common. -- Banjeboi 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)"

They are saying the citation is fine , this why I felt it OK to revert. ???? Swancookie (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather then report me. Perhaps you could show me exactly what I'm doing wrong?? I'm truly trying to stregnthen the article in question. I admit I don't know everything but I am no vandal. Swancookie (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR: Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. And for the record I don't agree it's legitimate, but even if you feel it is, it's not covered. You might want to read the link. I'll go ahead and take down the report, as I thought you were more experienced. My apologies. Soxwon (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you've been here a year and you've not learned WP:3RR?? Soxwon (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading WP:3RR but I thought I had gotten a third opinion, no? Not trying to be annoying but I thought that's what I had done. Swancookie (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the link now. I was here a few months got busy with school (notice the 8 months with no edits) and now am back to brush up on my editing skills. In real time only a few months on and off. I often get bogged down with work/school. Thank you. Any mentoring would be greatly appreciated. I'm really trying to do my best here. I'll get the hang of it, hopefully. Swancookie (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading WP:3RR but I thought I had gotten a third opinion, no?

Not trying to be annoying but I thought that's what I had done. Swancookie (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Hello, I see that you too have run into problems with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removing content/making accusations. I had been editing the Clint Catalyst article against this user for a while and running into what look to be the same edit warring patterns as you have. I grew frustrated and took a break from Wikipedia for a while (several other editors outright left over it), but am still hoping that some conclusion can be reached here that doesn't result in the outright deletion of known, well-cited artist entries just because of one editor who insists on removing content (some of which has even been previously given admin approval). Best of luck in dealing with this issue - perhaps we can work together? - Granny Bebeb (trying to remember my login). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.36.46 (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there nothing that can be done about Wolfowitz? I, like others, are certain that the HW logon os a group of people but that's not so relevant as the continued, mammoth edit warring, destructive editing, gmaing the system, hypocrisy, bad faith, temper, vendettas, etc. that torrent forth at an alarming rate. This cannot go on indefinitely, surely? Magpie1892) 13.27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

3RR violation at Jessicka, per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported to WP:AN3 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per our dispute. I'm getting a neutral third involved. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Killiondude#Acceptable_References Swancookie (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am asking why are you reporting me? Swancookie (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors dealing with article Jessicka/Hullballoo's aggressive edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xtian1313#To_all_editors_dealing_with_article_Jessicka.2FHullballoo.27s_aggressive_edits Xtian1313 (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Blocked user check

Hello there, no worries or apologies necessary. Sometimes I have to put on the adminhat and be firm. I'm actually quite pleasant.

You can request a check at WP:SSI. Do be sure to read over what to the requirements are involving evidence and possible socks. It may take a bit to get acquainted with the process but it's better to do it properly than to malform and have it denied. Happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with compiling evidence as you see fit. What is important is that it use appropriately and subsequently deleted from whatever holding pen you choose once submitted. Keegan (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swancookie, which user do you believe Hullaballoo actually is/was? What blocked user? I'm wondering if it's the same one I'm thinking. In any case, I am so lost among these various links and so forth that I cannot even tell if a sockpuppet investigation has been requested, started, or put through. It doesn't appear to me that the links you've provided actually show that there's any "blocked user check" being undertaken. Is that true? Cubert (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors/ Hullaballoo situation

The Hullaballoo situation seems to be escalating, any help in this situation that provides evidence that this user is actually a blocked user would be helpful.

He's still making false claims about me [12]. He's still acting underhandedly.

"I believe that the reason why Hullballoo is reinserting a section [13] on his talk page by user:Godblessyrblackheart who has removed it now twice because they came to some sort of resolution off wiki is to try to discredit editor user:Xtian1313 whom strongly disagrees with him. Several editors have come to him via his talk page but rather in engage them in a civil manner he removes or ignores their requests. That alone shows that he is unwilling to participate in good faith editing, civil behavior, and common decency. I will continue to gather evidence against him."

My fear is if we don't act now he will somehow manipulate this situation to make it seem like he's done nothing wrong. I truly understand how utterly tedious and annoying this is but I am certain we are dealing with a much bigger issue with this editor's bad faith deceitful uncivil editing.

Thank-you. Swancookie (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As user:Keegan has pointed out, this discussion is rather errant and scattered all over the place. Right now, it is difficult for me to follow the discussion because there are bits and pieces everywhere, on various talk pages. You really need to bring this up, as Keegan says, in one central location -- a formal admin noticeboard -- and then let the rest of us know exactly where you have reported this to the admins so we can chime in with our evidence accordingly. Right now, this isn't accomplishing anything because it's scattered everywhere.

I have personally witnessed the manner in which Hullaballoo is determined to deplete the accuracy of Wikipedia. I identify three major issues with his behavior: 1.) His preoccupation with certain public figures, most notably Hollywood figures, particularly those that have a following in the gay community, and his continual deletion of information regarding them. He frequently resorts to name-calling (so-and-so is a "wannabe," "minor-league celebrity," etc.) while criticizing others who call HIM names. At the same time, he appears to have an enormous amount of time at his disposal to read said articles. I believe this is a simple psychological situation; we are likely dealing with an individual who is fascinated by Hollywood celebrity culture, possibly has certain gay tendencies of which he is ashamed, etc., and resorts to attacking celebrities and gays as a form of lashing out against his own insecurities. That is just a theory. 2.) His preoccupation with deleting factual information from articles, or, instead, his preoccupation with putting CITATION NEEDED tags randomly throughout articles at the end of virtually every sentence. While this is not strictly "against the rules," it is widely frowned upon by other editors because it is not constructive. For all the time he appears to have, why doesn't he simply CITE these facts that has feels need to be cited? The answer, of course, is that this is a form of passive aggression; he desperately wants Wikipedia not to include information that he personally doesn't like, so he does everything in his power to frustrate other editors who have written or contributed these facts to Wikipedia. 3.) The crux of the matter: Hullaballo is difficult to deal with or censure, precisely because he games the system by invoking Wiki policies to defend what he is doing. Wiki rules can be used to justify virtually anything -- it's like taking a random passage from the Bible to defend one's bad behavior. Hullaballo usually follows the letter, but not the spirit, of the rules. (Incidentally, he often DOES break WIki rules, particularly "assume good faith" and "no name calling." But I have noticed that when people try to have honest discussions with him about this, he just deletes the discussions.) He shows no concern for warnings from admins; he frequently says "I don't care what the consensus was" or "I don't care what the admins decided." He has a difficult time dealing with authority, clearly, but is a genuine expert at evading responsibility by hiding behind the very rules which he flagrantly violates. That's my analysis in a nutshell.

But again, this whole discussion is pointless until it gets brought up as an official petition to the admins to reinstate their previous ban on Hullaballoo -- this time permanently. Cubert (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur mostly with this assessment, Swancookie you have frustrated the situation, likely unintentionally, by canvassing to bring attention to the issue. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, IMHO, is the next logical step. I think it's premature for ANI but perhaps that would make sense. -- Banjeboi 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add one thing. I didn't mean to suggest that Swancookie is doing anything wrong. Only that this will not be solved through talking about it on various talk pages; only through punitive measures taken against the disruptive editor via the admin boards.

One thing strikes me as odd, and borderline sociopathic. I have noticed, going through Mr. Hullaballoo's edit history, that he appears to have made absolutely no actual CONTRIBUTIONS to Wikipedia at all. Ever! Apparently he has never created a single article. His entire edit history consists of destructive edits (removals of information or CITATION NEEDED tags), often one-after-the-other in rapid succession, once or more PER MINUTE(!), sometimes over the course of hours. And 90% of them are related to homosexuality. I am trying to figure out what type of psychological condition would lead an individual to spend that sheer amount of time surfing through Wikipedia and rapidly deleting or tagging facts, but never actually contributing information to articles or citing things that he feels need citations. What is the motive here? What exactly is going on? What kind of person would spend SO much time doing such a thing? Why is an editor whose entire history consists of destructive edits even allowed on here any more? I think that any objective admin should conclude that there is a serious real-life COI here, perhaps even a dangerous one, that would drive such an individual to do something like this. There's something going on behind the scenes that we are not aware of, I suspect. It is simply too unbelievable that anyone other than the most disturbed homophobe would literally devote his life to something like this. His rampant preoccupation with homosexuality and pornography, particularly gay pornography, suggests that we are dealing with a disturbed, unstable, and potentially dangerous individual. It really scares me, to be honest. Cubert (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly ridiculous. Hullaballoo now has some type of vendetta against me. He is going through my edits and reverting them, completely ignoring WP:EW. He refers to my edits as either vandalism or disruptive. When I try to bring up an honest discussion with him on the talk page, he deletes it as harassment. This has got to stop. Somebody please do something. I'm sick of the constant intimidation. Cubert (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now virtually certain that "Hullaballoo" is actually several users operating simultaneously. A look at his edit history makes this particularly obvious. "He" is on Wikipedia non-stop, virtually all day every day, and during that entire time, he makes edits at the rate of approximately once per minute. Any edits made on or by editors or articles on his "hit list" are almost instantaneously reverted by him, at all hours. The guy would have to literally never sleep, eat, go to the bathroom, or do ANYTHING in life other than constantly patrol Wikipedia. His history reveals that he also has the super-human ability to edit multiple articles simultaneously at a rate that would be physically impossible for a single user. For example, he will remove a particular phrase that he dislikes in the middle of, say, "Jodie Foster"; then within one minute, he will be making an unrelated deletion of an uncited sentence on "Clint Eastwood"; a minute later he will be removing an unsourced phrase deep within another celebrity article, etc. He would have to be speed-reading at an ungodly rate to be able to find, identify, and edit these sentences buried deep within lengthy articles at such a super-human rate. All the while, continually monitoring the pages edited by his "enemies" and reverting their edits; while also continually monitoring his user talk page and deleting discussions there within seconds after they are posted. This has GOT to be multiple individuals. Any suggestions on where such a thing can be reported? Is there a Wiki rule against this? Cubert (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question: WP:NOSHARE Cubert (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

{{helpme}} How does an editor start an RFC? I'm at my wits end. Swancookie (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the instructions. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Taffy

Thanks! :) Much apprecated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HW

Thanks for the warning, but I'm already on the defensive when it comes to edits like his. My major problem was more about basic civility with him and misasserting his presence on the site and hopefully he realizes this in the future, or he'll end up tripping up on his own feet. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara McPherson

I was looking over my watchlist and saw your complaints on Benjiboi's page. Unfortunately, the article on Tara McPherson is a direct copyright infringement from her website. I'd offer to give you a copy of the text to work on, but it is literally word for word stolen from her web page. Feel free to start an article on her though. I've left the talk page and looking at her web page I think she is probably notable. AniMate^draw 20:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's possible to get the page up to par by editing? Rather then starting a new page? Mcpherson is clearly notable. I just want the chance to try to fix it. I contacted Benjiboi as he is well versed with the ongoing problem I've been having with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. HW is wikihounding me and a few other good faith editors here. Anytime I try to talk to him he claims it's harrassment and removes it off his talk page. He's gaming the system. He has a history of uncivil behavior. It's so frustrating. I wasn't able to figure out how to start an RFC so I thought I'd just start editing again, and of course once I started he showed up.

Swancookie (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page is already gone. I'll start a new one in a few days.

Swancookie (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry this is happening to you. Unfortunately I just don't know what to do. The admins have made the process of reporting them (I use the plural when referring to HW because "he" is clearly a group of users) so convoluted that I just don't have the time to deal with it. Every admin says the same thing: "Not my department; try somewhere else." In actuality, no admins want to confront HW because they Wikilawyer so much that it is impossible to keep up with them. And when they're banned, they just sign in or create another user name and start all over again. I'm leaving Wiki for the time being because they are too frustrating to deal with. I'm really sorry I can't be of more help but, unlike HW, I have a real life and job and I can't afford to spar all day! :) Cubert (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa D'Amato

Hi, I wish we could simply use IMDB, but there is some dispute. I moved your comment to the talk page here. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've been avoiding Wiki most of the time lately, but thanks for the suggestion. Any idea exactly how to do that, though? I'm not sure if Wikihounding is the best charge though, considering it seems the least of his offenses. He has followed my edit history, but is considerably less aggressive towards articles that aren't within the scope of his apparent vendetta (he actually reverted vandalism on Tiffany (singer) to my last edit).Granny Bebeb (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to figure out how to conduct a RFC still. I think our best bet is to discuss his uncivil behavior. He's insulting, rude, and calls people names. That is NOT allowed here. It's disruptive. Then perhaps we can expose his clear bias!

Swancookie (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...the attitude is definitely a problem. He then goes on to falsely accuse other editors (myself included) of partaking in these same behaviors, as well as making blatantly false claims about our actions or statements. Granny Bebeb (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about minor edit to Clint Catalyst page

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia and I noticed on Clint Cataylst's page that Germany's Next Top Model was showing up in red I made the correction so it could link to its rightful wiki page but wanted to reword it in the summary. I don't want to use wikipedia as a reference. And i know this is one of the pages under scrutiny. I wanted to ask your assistance. Is it a serious issue or is it something you could reword for me.?

How would I undo and reword an edit for future reference?

UnicornDan (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the CC page would still be under scrutiny. Let me guess user Hullaballoo??? It's now been worked and reworked several times ;/ Let me have a look as I'm not clear on what you are talking about.

Swancookie (talk)

Definitely still under scrutiny...could someone please have a look at the history on the page? Hullaballoo just went WAY over 3RR, on top of deleting an administrator-approved bibliography + more false claims. There has to be a way to put a stop to this...Granny Bebeb (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying after the note I just got: The behavior should be clear upon looking at the article's edit history. A significant amount of edits (as well as older, approved content) were removed at once. I will neither retract this statement nor apologize for stating the truth. Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is sufficient proof that Hullaballoo is an account used by several disruptive editors. They seem to be on a crusade to sabotage and ultimately delete subjects they don't approve of. There really should be much quicker action taken on these types of accounts, it's ruined my experience here at Wikipedia... I drop in once in a while to see if anything has changed and I'm disappointed every time. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, were you the one looking for evidence of abusive behavior towards other editors? There's some on the Talk page to Clint Catalyst as well as in some of the article's edit summaries, as well as on a few User:Talk pages (especially funny considering the note he just left on mine insinuating false claims/bad faith editing and demanding treatment he never showed to any other editors involved). Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the pattern for Hullaballoo, as evidenced by every single article he's involved in "editing". Dogtownclown (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again...I don't know if you're still following the situation, but I just thought I'd throw it out there that it seems as though the edit history on the Catalyst article after a certain point (before April) has disappeared, along with some questionable edit summaries. I don't know if maybe it's just not loading for me for some reason or what, or what this means. Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

discography

Hi, I cleaned up the discography, it looked and felt crufty which attracts concerns of ... cruft. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better, thank you! Swancookie (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BS

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Jessicka. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have far too long a track record of accusing editors who disagree with you of "weird bias" and similar accusations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First and foremost do not threaten me with a block. I am following policy not twisting it as you do. Not "editors" JUST YOU! Show me where I have had a problem with anybody here besides YOU? I get along with most people here! I am not attacking you, at all. I believe you have a weird bias with any article that mentions Jessicka or her husband. I will not allow you to bully me here! I've tried to be civil with you. You refuse to treat me civilly. You are a bully. I'm involving a third party that can be neutral as I am very very sure you CANNOT when dealing with several articles here because of your bias and (cough-cough "faith"). Swancookie (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:2505582247 f1a8ec5ab4.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2505582247 f1a8ec5ab4.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Carrie Borzillo

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Carrie Borzillo. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Borzillo. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Christian&Jessicka.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Christian&Jessicka.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:AustinYoung.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:AustinYoung.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jared Gold

The article Jared Gold has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable person

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:AustinYoung.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:AustinYoung.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]