User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

4517:

pointing me towards references would help me constructively respond to your points. I asked for clarification about the NFCCE process because it has been confusing to me to first have the files deleted from the article by you, then to receive notification for most of them through an automated NFCCE process initiated by an admin, and then to receive notification through the automated orphan process. I have previously reviewed and continue to review the policy pages, which is how I found the NFCCE enforcement process, and I wanted to alert you that I am participating in it, but I was also curious if I had missed something in terms of a policy or guideline related to why you had not used the NFCCE process. I'm not trying to litigate, I am trying to understand, which is why I have asked for your help. Unfortunately, it isn't helpful to generally tell me to review policy pages and to generally refer to long-settled issues, but if there are specifics that you think are relevant to the files that I will be trying to better explain a rationale for through the NFCCE process, I think it would be best if further discussion of the files happens on those pages. Thank you,

4199:

changing that picture to the profile picture. It is terrible. You can leave it as a photo in the body section of the page instead of putting a terrible photo that just looks worse than ever with the text below it at the top. Also, of course, just like anyone with their own profile page on this website, Hullaballoo, strikes with the confrontational behaviour and tells me I should learn Knowledge’s policies before I “embarrass” myself “even further”. Isn’t that mature there. Well, the thing is that you work on Knowledge constantly and I am unsure how you haven’t embarrassed you or your family yet at this point. I am removing that picture from the cover image. Do not change it. You are genuinely vandalizing my work when you do so. I will change that picture back to where it was before and it can be left here. I’ve read some of your other discussions on your page and you are definitely nothing more than confrontational with everyone on Knowledge.

5848:, thanks for your feedback, but I see things differently. In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Knowledge. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Knowledge process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct. In this particular case, what the block prevents is similar misconduct by this user for six months. As their reaction here shows, they do not recognize the problem with their conduct. This indicates that "raising my concerns on this talk page", as you suggest, would not have changed the user's conduct. I remain of the view that the block is an appropriate preventative measure. 4427:

by the so-called youth culture — hippies, yippies and freaks—in contrast with the more traditional values of the vast majority of the community, presumably including most citizens summoned for jury service. Again, we are not unaware that many otherwise qualified members of the community could not be impartial toward, and in fact are often offended by, persons who wear long hair, beards, and bizarre clothing and who seem to avoid the burdens and responsibilities of regular employment. Several defendants would exemplify this conflict." "The district judge properly instructed the jurors that they “must not in any way be influenced by any possible antagonism you may have toward the defendants or any of them, their dress, hair styles, speech, reputation, courtroom demeanor or quality, personal philosophy or lifestyle.” The United States Attorney should not have urged the jury to consider those things." (Ragsdale, Bruce. (2008)

4090:. The images I removed were nonfree, as you indicated in their image file pages. Absent certain rare exceptions, not at all relevant here, nonfree images of the article subject may not be displayed in biographies of living persons. While you may have permission from the original publisher to use those images, Knowledge-only permission is not sufficient to allow use. Those images can only be used for your purposes if the copyright holder provides a full release allowing use by anyone, such as a CC BY-SA 3.0 License, allowing upload to Commons; and for previously published images, it is best to provide permission through the OTRS process. This is a clear-cut matter. Those images may not be used without an appropriate release, and are subject to automatic deletion in the near future. 4412:, I have not found any free equivalent despite extensive searching, and explained how the significantly cropped and low-resolution image was intended to respect the commercial opportunities of the original copyrighted material, engaged in minimal use, found the work published outside of Knowledge, attempted to explain the contextual significance, and described the image with available information, including the artist and publisher. As I review the policies, I haven't found a discussion of a specific policy related to living persons, which makes it more challenging for me to respond to your concerns. I do take this issue very seriously and I appreciate any help you can provide with developing a valid rationale for the inclusion of the infobox image. Thank you 3574:, but that seems like a bit of work to try and sort out. Since uploading and replacing the photo were the only edits made by this account, my guess is that someone related to Aaboe Googled him and found the article, didn't like the photo, and decided to change it without even considering anything related to copyright at all. A good-faith mistake, but still a mistake. Whether you want to upload this photo as a non-free replacement is entirely up to you, but I'm assuming you saw other photos of Aaboe (probably even the one uploaded to Commons) and chose the one you chose because its provenance was clearer as well as for some other reasons.FWIW, since the account has only made one edit so far, I didn't feel it was necessary to start advising them of 3377:

might still try and argue that the file should be kept, but only moved to the body of the article. Simply removing the file so that it ends up deleted per F5 will most likely only lead to someone just re-adding it. Normally, I would suggest tagging it with rfu, but the admin who reviews the tag would probably decline it and say the file should be brought to FFD instead based on the above. I know others sometimes give you a hard time regarding your efforts to try and clean up NFCC problems, but I think you do a good job and very rarely make a mistake when you remove a file. I just think this time it might be better to not ignore the previous FFD and instead try and seek clarification or a reversal of it instead. --

5736:

made the same or similar comments, I would not think an instant block would be the result, or indeed any kind of block. I appreciate when there is a history of incivility then there is considerably less assumption of good faith, however in this instance I don't think HW's comments were excessively incivil. Borderline, yes, brusque, very much so and the general tone was eyebrow-raising. Looking at the underlying view expressed, the statements made by HW are not too unreasonable. The worst personal statement I see is to "trout the nominator harshly" - if this is the worst of HW's statement, then maybe it's a sign of progress.

1345:, but these are exceptions not the rule. A free equivalent of a non-free file does not have to currently exist, there only has to be a reasonable expectation that it can be found or created. It doesn't have to be created or found by you, it can be anyone, and it doesn't have to be created or found by any particular date. Moreover, a free equivalent doesn't even have to be a free version of the exact same file, it can be a different file and only has to be sufficient enough to provide the same basic encyclopedic information and serve the same basic encyclopedic purpose. The file you were trying to use ( 6194: 1361:. Explicit is quite experienced in dealing with non-free files and wouldn't have deleted the file for F7 reasons if he disagreed with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment. If you feel that there are special considerations which should've been taken into account, the best thing to do would be to discuss them with Explicit on his user talk page; perhaps, your arguments will be persuasive enough to get Explicit to restore the file for further discussion. There's really not anything more that Hullaballo Wolfowitz can do here since he cannot restore a deleted file. -- 1529:

there is no proof of socking, none whatsoever. The AfD's intentions are hard to figure out, and your easy answers lack proof--plus the editor who initiated it is, as far as we can tell, not a sock, and I happen to know this was already investigated. You didn't know that, but you're jumping to conclusions. Now, if your suppositions had been either proven correct or were reasonable and supported by evidence, you would have been correct in closing it, but neither is the case yet. To make a long story short, you are the one not following applicable policy, given

5955:, in my view not. Incivility is an issue of personal character and temperament that is not limited to any particular namespace. There's no reason to believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be more civil in, say, article talk page discussions than in AfDs, especially because in their unblock request above they do not even recognize that their conduct is problematic at all. What's more, the previous six-month block also extended to all namespaces; it would not be in keeping with our practice of escalating blocks to limit the scope of a block for recidivism. 4116:, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". The encyclopedic purpose here in showing what Mr Keiver looks like. While the current picture is not the best in terms of portraiture, it is however a free public domain equivalent. Even if there was no free picture, the second part of point 1 would come into play "or could be created". We would not use a non-free picture of a living person except under extreme circumstances (they are unable to be photographed and are conceivably never likely to be) which is a rare occurance. 2099: 3109:

causes more of a headache than just removing the whole thing. Don't blame me if you are blocked for trying though. The stupid thing is, if a bunch of editors are willing to get blocked over it, it may become enough of an issue that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be forced to change their signature. Yet somehow it makes sense to allow Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's clear disruption just because others care more about Knowledge than they do and therefore aren't willing to cause this strife and therefore are not doing this.

4758: 2162: 4363:. As a general matter, the 'counterculture' appearance of several of the Chicago 7 defendants has been noted by many sources; clarifying Lee Weiner's actual appearance during the trial as compared to the depiction in the recent movie had also seemed noteworthy. It is also a historic photograph that can't be replaced because it was taken in 1970. I am less familiar with these policies and would appreciate your assistance with bringing this image into compliance with Knowledge policies. Thank you, 5484: 4681: 568:. It's not about "oh, readers can imagine them kissing." It's about the fact that this particular moment is groundbreaking/historical and the image is displaying that particular moment. While they have kissed other times on the series, it is this kiss that received all of the media attention. We are allowed to include a non-free image when the imagery itself is the discussion or when the imagery validly aids the topic of discussion. And, no, I do not believe that what you did in 4275: 3062: 1259: 6566: 6785: 6733: 6508: 6456: 6404: 6251: 6141: 5001: 3508: 2237: 6352: 4018: 3458: 3933: 2014: 726: 5547: 1514:

not worthy of respect. You don't even pretend to argue with my carefully stated, policy-based justification for my actions. I've been told, and accepted, that disputable, good faith NAC closures should be taken to DRV or, in worst cases, to AN/I, not unilaterally reversed. You don't dispute that this was a good faith closure with a policy basis. Why the fuck do you think that you don't have to follow generally applicable policies?

21: 3131: 3198:, where an experienced admin describes an editor's conduct as "lying to people". (To be sure, an editor who makes false claims of this nature in bad faith may be sanctioned for disruption, but that is not the issue here.) My edits have been repeatedly described as "dishonest", or as lies, or in similarly insulting terms, and my complaints were rejected out of hand (particularly with regard to the notorious, now-WMF-banned 6684: 5102: 5717:

between nominations. I do believe the concerns raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz were justified under the circumstances. That said, Hullaballoo could have been kinder and calmer in the way those issues were presented. I am not familiar with the history behind this case, but I would argue that it's not clear that a blockable infraction was made in this instance. (at least not one deserving of such a long ban)

2419:

nonfree images is not discretionary, not a matter of editorial decisionmaking, and is compelled by WMF policy, which cannot be overriden by local or even global consensus here. Because free images of the subject are available, and certainly could be created if they were not, a nonfree image of the article subject cannot be used, whether we choose as an editorial matter to display a free image or not.

5112: 2537: 2495: 2133: 6306: 3623: 4171:, then I'm sure Hullaballo Wolfwitz will have no problem with the images being used in the article (at least from a copyright standpoint). Otherwise, without the copyright holders' consent being verified, there's really no way such images can be kept as they will need to be treated as non-free content. Of course, you might disagree with this, and you can ask for other opinions at 3234:. Personal attacks harm the Knowledge community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Please heed this warning or you may be sanctioned for further such conduct. Thanks, 5891:. Those of us who spend a lot of time at AFD have been constantly frustrated by the "efforts" of one particular editor who is blindly nominating articles for deletion in rapid succession simply because they have been tagged as being of questionable notability for years. It's clear that the majority of these nominations have been done without any reference to 3858:. The reason for this is that it's almost always considered reasonable for a freely-licensed equivalent that is capable of serving the same encyclopedic purpose as a non-free one to either be found or created by someone at some point. If, as you state, the copyright holder provided you with this image, then perhaps you can ask them to get them to email their 3874:, but basically Knowledge only will accept free licenses that essentially allow anyone anywhere in the world to download the file at anytime and re-use for any purpose (including commercial and derivative re-use); moreover, once the copyright holder agrees to such a thing, they can't "cancel" the license after the fact if they change their mind as explained 5460:

noted in the close that there is no consensus to require a signature change. As HW points out above, the community generally tolerates the signature as it is, and personally I'm content to ignore it if the signature is the only concern. Unless there is a clear consensus to require a change, I'm not going to use admin tools just to fight over a signature.

4485:

Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." By deleting the images from the article without notifying me (the uploading editor) and allowing an opportunity to provide a non-free-use defense on the file page, the files are now set to be deleted as orphans per criterion 7. In the meantime, the

1409:

forwarded/authorized his own bio pic (which he owns). At that point there seems to be several licenses listed that apply to that situation. Evidently I am still quite unclear as to which among the long licensing list is the most applicable for current, copyrighted material used from the creator (who gave permission). Please advise if possible.

6802:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 6750:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 6525:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 6473:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 6421:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 6268:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 6158:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 5018:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 3525:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 2254:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge. 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 Knowledge (see 1456:, and I find your accusation of bad faith un-civil. I spent several hours trying to research the subject after learning of the author and article's existence but after finding reason to doubt notability and an almost complete lack of compliant sourcing on the page I followed the procedures listed on wikipedia. I would appreciate an apology. 3222:

is in no way an accusation or a personal attack against you. It was you who personalized the disagreement when you replied: "Nominator, don't lie", " Any reasonable editor would understand this", "your COI tag was ridiculous" and used generally confrontative, aggressive and personal language. This conduct violated our core conduct policy

5829:, but I would like to think that raising your concerns on this talk page before blocking would have led to a better outcome. I'd like to ask you to reconsider and hopefully come to the conclusion to unblock, but I'll leave it to another admin to evaluate if you still object as I'm not a fan of unilaterally overturning civility blocks. 4257:, one of the most famous/notable American magazine editors ever. (There will be one added later today, though, because as a 1925 publication it entered the public domain at the beginning of this year. There is a very narrow exception when the article includes sourced discussion of the cover image itself, but that doesn't apply here. 93:

caption into the article prose instead of simply blanking it alongside the image? I am asking because sometimes I invest considerable effort into researching the origin and content of images, and cite them, with literature etc., in the image description. If the image is deleted for some reason, this research is also lost from view.

1549:

involved in the discussion up to that point suggested other than "keep", and didn't "just vote" but explained why Hoyt is notable, so to me looked like an appropriate early close (i do acknowledge that Hull's edit comments may have been inappropriate/incorrect but that doesn't mean that their early close was also incorrect).

2123: 4408:, of the history of the trial. Nathan Robinson did not find text sufficient to convey the difference between Weiner's appearance during the trial and the recent film, and included a hyperlink to the image, which seems to help emphasize how the image aids the reader's understanding and its omission would be detrimental. Per 4457:

explained the purpose in accordance with the policies when I uploaded them - as I continue to review the policies, it appears that with regard to the memoir book cover and the recent picture of Lee Weiner, I misunderstood how the policies apply when I uploaded them, so I have not yet taken any action on those files.

4629:. You used the phrase "facially invalid" which I do not understand. From my perspective, the subject of this article has no business being in an encyclopedia of knowledge. The subject is not notable in any discernable way. No relevant citations on the page are valid and no other verifiable citations could be found. 2913:"slippery slope" arguments. If the community permits one editor to put "support HK" in their signature then the community can't really stop me from adding "support Brazil" or what have you, and if it catches on, our talk pages will become covered in political slogans. At that point we'll pass a rule prohibiting it. 5387:. Another time, the close was "If you're offended by his signature, you're allowed to personally ask him to change it. He's also allowed to refuse to do so. No sanctions will come from this". In yet another discussion, an editor declared "When I saw Hullaballoo's signature for the first time, it made me feel 6095:

as follows: "While controversial this block falls well within the discretion of an administrative action and is based on prior behavior and sanctions. In addition while there is significant opposition to the block there is a majority that supports the block. This discussion has been going on for more

5716:

were taken as a serious personal attack infraction; as the nominator at this particular AFD (Boleyn) has been nominating large amounts of articles for deletion very rapidly recently in succession. These nominations have been so close together that a competent BEFORE search could not have been done in

4504:

NFCCE is not an instantaneous process; it depends on a small number of volunteers. Images are allowed to remain in articles unless challenged; the fact that an image is not immediately removed shows exactly nothing. You have been notified, by an automatic process, of pending deletion once the nonfree

3787:

The photo in question was provided by photographer and copyright holder, Sue Melke, who is Barbara Niven’s partner in one business and her media branding consultant responsible for the content of her web page. If the photo is not properly identified, please let me know what needs done. Otherwise, the

2994:

There are other things it doesn't mention, like userboxes. You describe exclusions you don't like as "loopholes", which iss just another way of putting your thumb on the scale. The current balance was struck after an extended and painful conflict centered on userboxes. I doubt any sensible user would

2707:

Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog

2418:

does not call for this result, particularly in the case of a public figure who allows himself to be freely photographed at his public appearances. The issue is not the adequacy of the available free photos as identifying images, but a different, discretionary, concern. However, the ban on replaceable

68:

Thanks for the heads-up. I've removed the alternative covers, since the use rational for each says that the cover will "serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question"; that is plainly not the case, and no alternative rationale has been

5778:

In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by

5408:

For those of us who know the reasons behind said sig, its not uncivil, its an accurate statement of fact, albeit an unpleasant one. Which is largely why previous discussions of said sig dont end up with the resolution the people who take offense at it want. I would suggest you go take a long look at

4550:

I admit this proof is a little dodgy - I have no idea if he actually sent the email or not. If you require more proof to his consent for the picture to be used on the page then I'll try and get a full statement out of him. If it's not that and there's something wrong with the submitting process that

2745:

Generally, if you want to know what I'm saying then all you need to do is read what I'm saying, and if it doesn't include what you're asking me if I'm saying then I'm not saying it. Specifically, if I'd meant to say you could include "down with Donald Trump" in your signature, I'd have said 'You can

2320:

where everyone besides yourself HAS denied that the image violates NFCC. Because you stopped responding on the talk page, the dispute is essentially resolved in favor of keeping the image. You may continue to make your case and keep the discussion going on the talk page, but until a new consensus is

1039:

was snapped at 24 seconds, when the shooters have fired just a few rounds. The screenshot Mohammed snapped was at about 26 seconds, after the five shooters have been blasting the crowd for just two second - still long enough to have fired hundreds of rounds into the several dozen people you can see

777:

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

143:

The NYTimes reported on March 11, 1961 that a teenage theater troupe led by Feiden was trying to raise $ 600 to stage its production of "Peter Pan" in an Off-Broadway house. Not exactly Broadway money, even for 1961. (The theatre involved apparently allowed its premises to be used for children/youth

5899:

closed. Its also clear that there is no appetite among the admin corps for dealing with this particular editor and these particular nominations. Okay, fine, but the result is increasingly frustrated AFD participants. We're here because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, unless of course your

5801:

In context, the "institutional misogyny" highlighted seems more in reference to the nomination than a direct personal attack, although still inappropriate. I am not an advocate of HW in the slightest, particularly as there certainly remains issues with general civility and the apparent inability to

5459:

Generally, the community has not come to a consensus that HW's signature is inappropriate. The previous block wasn't "for exactly this kind of issue". The previous block was for a specific incident and editing restriction; the discussion touched on the signature only tangentially. For this reason I

4949:

Once again, maybe it would be best to leave it up to HW to decide (1) if he wants to archive his user talk page and (2) how to best do that very thing if he decides that's want he wants to do. Unless you're willing to start a discussion about this at ANI, it seems like nothing good will come of you

4426:

As an example of how the appearance of the defandants, including Lee Weiner, was notable, there are these excerpts from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision on the appeal of the criminal convictions: "Perhaps secondary, but significant, were the conflicts of values represented

4330:

use rationales. In general, nonfree content policy treats all nonfree images of living persons as replaceable by free images, with very narrow exceptions (prisoners, fugitives, etc, and people whose notability rests on their particularly distinctive past physical appearance) which don't apply here.

4198:

I am beginning to get tired of these confrontational Knowledge moderators like Hullaballoo who make edits without even explaining what they did. If we’re playing by the Knowledge rules, is that how it is supposed to be done when you’re making such a large edit to the page? I am asking that you stop

3747:

That said, after re-reading the article, I agree that the BLP violations, while subtle in their placement, were profound in their effect. I have deleted it under criterion G10, because even if there was no malice in creating the article, the effects were too severe to allow it to stand. I used your

3221:

I disagree. The AfD read: "A non notable BLP. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Deprodded with no sources added nor any explanation." This AfD text is focused on the content of the article, and while it does criticize the deprodding, it does so without mentioning you. It

3108:

My view is that if Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz post their signature to article talk pages or somewhere else where soapboxing is clearly unwelcome, you should feel free to remove their comment for soapboxing. You could just remove that part of their signature, but redacting part of someone's comment often

2399:

since there appears to be quite a bit of disagreement as to whether this violates FREER being made on the article's talk page. I think that this is likely going to end up at FFD one way or another; so, probably the image should be left alone at least to an admin reviews the speedy deletion template

2288:

Hi there, I am trying my best to learn all the ins and outs of non-free images so hopefully you can give me some input? So looking at your comments it appears that I've overstepped some non-free image rules by putting a picture of the mask they wear in the info box. Is there a specific guideline on

1548:

yep, accept that they can be reversed but assume (maybe i shouldn't:)) that it should be reversed based on the rest of no. 1 ie. "The nominated item is a controversial topic, or the discussion is controversial.", nope, "That the item meets appropriate closure is a close call", none of the 6 editors

524:

Hello, I see from the state of your talk page that you are a seasoned and controversial editor here. I don't have a big issue with your edit removing the image, but I'm interested in the explanation about the fair use rationale being 'invalid'. Surely it serves a purpose for showing the distinctive

173:

The article title, "Teen-Age Troupe Trying 'Peter Pan' For Off Broadway", pretty much says almost all we need to know; the article also reports that the cost of staging the production would be $ 600 -- which, even in 1961, couldn't possibly stage a professional production in Manhattan. But, hey, if

148:

If you could dig up that reference or point me in the right direction I would appreciate eversomuch. Also, I seem to remember at least one reviewer said that the cast was made up of High School for the Performing Arts students?...if you have any idea where I could find a ref for that statement that

5735:

I very seldom ever express views on unblock requests, however, despite having some vague understanding of the civility issues that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been a party to over time, I do take some sympathy on this occasion. If you take any pre-existing bias out and consider if another editor had

5292:

You're badly misinterpreting the discussion you cite. That discussion makes the point that while currently reported relationships may be mentioned in an article if well-sourced, relationships which are not currently reported should not be absent some evidence of significance to the subject's life.

4213:

Also, changing the text under the image? Are you serious? There is a reason it is as detailed is it is! It’s like writing a math equation then cutting it short for space and removing half of the symbols. It doesn’t work that way. Please fix that yourself or leave this page alone. You are genuinely

3164:

I've read that comment. It appears correct in all respects. You appear to be under the misapprehension saying accurate things about an editor's editing practices that are not positive is a personal attack. It is not. Your time would be better spent encouraging the editors who raise shoddy AFD's to

1929:

I suspect that they're both copyright-nonrenewed, but without better sourcing we'll never be able to show it. I also not that the credit in the "First Four" caption doesn't appear consistent with the sourcing on the file page, but a quick online search for the "Northern Indiana Center for History"

1513:

What I see from your edit summary is that you're just another fucking abusive admin who refuses to follow or to cite governing policy and insisting that his little tin admin badge allows him to the rest of us animals who are less equal than others. Well, your behaviour here demonstrates why you're

1234:

Hullaballoo relies on gut instincts and snap judgements. I genuinely think they should wise up and acknowledge they too are subject to normal human fallibility. In particular they failed in their excisions at Florin Fodor. They failed to use good judgment in failing to recognize an historic and

5637:

Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old

3042:

You are just ignoring reality. SOAPBOXES mentions userpages, but does not prohibit "commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise" content in userboxes. The community drew the line quite some time ago, and that you don't like where the line was drawn doesn't

1944:

Thanks for taking a look. I didn't notice the discrepancy between caption and source; so, nice catch. I ask about these at MCQ to see if perhaps someone can track down their original source since it seems unlikely to be that website. Perhaps if the original source can be found, then perhaps their

5824:

helpful for weighing civility blocks, and I'm not sure the conduct at issue falls below the standard laid out there. Second, I'm worried about the timeliness of the block. The comment was made two weeks ago, and in that time the comment didn't seem to cause any stir. Unless there's some incident

4456:

Thank you for your reply - I don't agree with the short answer, and I have tried to develop a longer explanation on the file's Talk page, and in the updated rationale. At this point, I have responded to three files, on their Talk pages and with updated rationales, because I don't think I clearly

4070:

Not to mention how you then proceed to change the image of him in the cockpit of the airplane to the main cover image. If anything, remove the others WITH REASON though leave that out of the picture that would represent him. Please do explain why you have decided to vandalize this Knowledge page

3376:

from just last month by another editor who, like yourself, does quite a bit of NFCC cleanup. If something has changed since that 2016 FFD that now makes the file replaceble non-free use, then perhaps a better thing to do would be to re-discuss this at FFD. Even with the new infobox image someone

2848:

TYW7 acknowledges that no disruption can be attributed to the portion of my signature they object to. They don't deny that content, like userboxes, which is "political in nature", is allowed. They agree that NOTADVOCACY does not extend to signatures, although it "can be extended" to them. But it

1528:

Can I say what I see? At first glance your NAC seems to have some merit, though your response to Bbb was of course rude and unnecessary. But then again, if you look closely, it all falls apart. The first PROD was applied by someone with one single edit, sure--so they're automatically an SPA, but

5632:

First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a

5308:

I didn't badly misinterpreted it, but since you are adamant that the sources are not reliable source and insisting notable news source as a just copy from PR relations (which the agency didn't release any press release in their official website nor in either social media accounts) nor welcoming

4516:

I feel like it would be helpful to our discussion if you would cite sources in your replies to me, because there are a lot of policy pages and a long history of issues on Knowledge that I am not as familiar with as a fairly new editor. For us to communicate as peers and on a more equal footing,

1610:

I'd say that "The Unknown Comic" is a fictional character, while the article is a BLP of Murray Langston, the performer who sometimes performed as that character. A nonfree image of an actor playing a character generally isn't allowed in the performer's BLP. The uploader's use rationale is also

4484:

did not apply before you deleted the images from the article, specifically, "A file in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted. To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another

4379:

On your first question, Weiner's appearance isn't a basis for his notability, and the inaccuracy is the film can be conveyed by text alone. With regard to the other images, I frankly don't see any way for any of the other images to be used in the article unless the copyright holders issue full

92:

is fine, I suppose, but may I make a suggestion, since you appear to take it upon yourself to hunt down unfree imagery: In cases where, as you yourself argue, the image is "replaceable by text", why not provide this text at the time you remove the image? Or at the very least transfer the image

363:

applies to all Knowledge pages and all living persons; so, claiming to be a specific identifiable person in your posts when you really aren’t (particularly someone with a Knowledge article written about them) seems just as bad as actually using the other person’s real name as your username. —

5646:

community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI

1329:. Each Knowledge project has its own policies and guidelines determined by its respective community; there might be some similarities and overlap, but there also might be some big differences. I'm not sure what Russian Knowledge's policy on non-free content use it, but English Knowledge's is 423:

photos, they were used simply to illustrate a list of cast members, devoid of any substantive commentary. The same function could be served (perhaps better served) by a gallery of free head shots. For Eastenders, we were dealing with a gallery of nonfree group shots, without specific sourced

4252:

The general rule is that nonfree images of an article subject's work may not be displayed in their biography -- album covers for a musician, book covers for an author, movie posters for a director, magazine covers for an editor, etc. Note that right now there is no cover in the article for

1408:

page. Please check this to make sure it is right. Of all things that I've uploaded or created on Knowledge (which is many), knowing what is the correct attribution and licensing for images/picture is the most difficult. In this case, Dresel was contacted after the draft was written and

1767:. Also note that a separate, valid nonfree use rationale is required for each article in which a nonfree image appears, and since you did not provide one the image was subject to summary removal. Use of a nonfree image in one article does not alone justify its use in any other article. 1162:

In my opinion Hullaballoo manifests a terrible failing, one which is unfortunately much more common among wikipedia contributors than it should be. Hullaballoo seems to have a terrible problem considering the possibility that people who disagree with them may be making valid points.

4822:

I did not know just because you saw a citation of article that was not recent enough, you had the ability to remove their relationship status in its entirety? Their relationship status has been reportedly quite heavily in Indian media. Was there ever an article mentioning a break up?

3257:

My attention has been drawn to this conversation. Firstly, regarding the claim that my comments were in retaliation - I hadn’t even made the connection between the different AFDs, I was merely commenting on the article, not the editor. Secondly, regarding “shoddy” AFDs, according to

1611:

patently invalid. So the image really ought to go, as things stand now. I also agree that there are likely to be free, no-notice publicity shots available -- in fact, this image might well be such an image. It's certainly a publicity shot, and if the date for a promo piece like this

1493:

As you can see from my edit summary reverting you again, you're risking a block if you persist. Nonetheless, you have two choices. One, comment at the AfD that it should be snow closed and why. Two, take it to ANI and get an administrator to agree with you and close it that way. But

1533:

item 1, which also points at the "understanding that the closure may be reversed". Which is what happened. And Bbb's is correct to point out that a comment at the AfD and maybe a ANI would have been the right thing to do. Instead, you're insulting him, treating him, yes, like dirt.

1584:

since it seems his appearance played a big role in his popularity (even though it's just a paper bag). Given the Unknown Comic seemed to reach his peak of popularity in the early to mid 1970s, there might also be a free publicity photo floating around out there that might be OK as

736:; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 5431:

So two wrongs make a right? Since when? As for ANI being unable to resolve this; clearly this user has long-term civility issues, and one thing ANI is usually not too useful for (due to many reasons) is civility issues - unless they're really obvious - so that's what it's worth.

5758:

blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for six months "per consensus at ANI, violation of civility-related editing restriction". This block and the ANI closure that led to it was uncontested, which establishes that a civility restriction was and is in fact in force, as described in the

537:

The use rationale states that the image is being used to support textual discussion of the "line of products". There is no such text in the article. Also, the promotional nonfree image could be replaced with a free(r), user-created image showing examples of the product line.

6096:

than 48 hours and as time passes is moving more towards supporting the block. There is not a consensus that the block was incorrect and it is not likely that one will form. As far as the community discussion goes the block stands. The remaining unblock avenues remain open."

1427:

Only the copyright holder may license an image. Since you are not the copyright holder, you need to either 1) show that the image was published elsewhere, under the authority of the copyright holder, with an appropriate free license; or 2) provide proof of the licensing to

3432:

Can you wikilink me to the Knowledge article that describes what constitutes the parameters of a "current source" before information should be removed? I see you using that rationale in a number of your recent edits and would like to know what it is based off of. Thanks,

2690:"Knowledge is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Knowledge is not for: 5825:

since then which I'm unaware of, I don't really see what is being prevented. Given the minimal disruption it caused, a block seems more like an escalation than a resolution. Given my close and previous block, I obviously agree with you about the interpretation of the

5647:

discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction.

2849:

hasn't been. Exactly the same could be said of userboxes, and would require the deletion of scores if not hundreds of userboxes on thousands of userpages. This is just an IDONTLIKEIT complaint, and I see no reason for the discussion to continue and waste users' time.

3326:; if you disagree with the tag, feel free to explain why on the file's talk page. Just for reference, the fact that a free equivalent doesn't currently exist is almost always never consider a sufficient justification for using a non-free one in this type of way. -- 2414:@Marchjuly - I believe the talk page discussion (and some of the discussion here) conflates two issues. Whether to include a photograph of the article subject, when a free image that can properly identify the article subject, is a matter of editorial discretion. 6376:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

848:

I'm not really familiar with the details of the relevant bot's operation, but I believe it only checks the status of an image once. Releasing an image under a free license is generally irrevocable; rights validly given to the public can't be taken back later.

478:

I spotchecked articles on about a dozen similar TV shows of the same vintage, and about 80% did not use cast photos at all. Consensus practice appears to run against your position, which you don't provide any positive evidence in favor of. Major films like

3555:

Hi HW. You can ignore this notification since I've tagged the photo that was uploaded to Commons as a copyvio and restored the non-free that had been replaced. However, you may want to try and dig a bit deeper here since the uploader of the Commons file

1628:

Sorry for not responding sooner. Thanks for taking a look at this. Your point about the image being of a fictional character is a good one that I didn't consider. I guess it would be better for the infobox image to be of Langston sans the paper bag per

1129:

Much like your complaint about edit notes as a form of discussion, your taking a discussion about an article and moving it to the user talk page of one single participant also makes it difficult to determine how events unfolded for the rest of us... --

3349:. This is virtually always the case for living persons; the few exceptions recognized are cases like inmates serving life sentences, long-term fugitives, or the permanently institutionalized. Merely having dropped from the public eye in insufficient. 6004:

from the above comments it is clear that this action lacks consensus. Anyone can of course try to gain consensus for such a block or other sanction at the appropriate forum but I suggest that the block should be removed until such time as that might

4342:

Thank you for your reply - starting with the first image that was in the infobox, I think there is notability based on the particularly distinctive past physical appearance, which could be made more clear in the use rationale, e.g. Nathan Robinson of

1291:

Seriously? What justifies a non-free use of it then? Howcome the Russian Knowledge uses a photo from the same source, and it's fair-free use rationale is justified but this is not? How is the fact there is no non-free substitute not a justification?

1790:

You seem to have removed images that I posted for the Scott Williams article. Some were taken by me, showing the artist's work, whcich I had permission to show. How can I get these pictures back? I had permissions, and hold the copyright on some.

6380:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

4167:. So, if you can contact the copyright holders of these images (be careful here since the copyright holder of a photo is almost always the person taking the photo and not the subjct of the photo) and get them to give their consent as explained in 1575:

Hi HW. I'm wondering what you think about this file's non-free use. The person behind the bag (so to speak) is still living so may be it's possible that he's still performing as the unknown comic which makes a non-free not really acceptable per

3882:

that can be used for "non-commercial use only" or "non-derivative use" only types of content, such licenses are not free enough for Knowledge's purposes. If you want an idea as to how to ask the copyright holder for this permission, please see

1743:

The photograph of Congressman Chudoff that I added to the List of Jewish Members of the United States Congress article is the one included in his Knowledge article, and is listed as being from the Pennsylvania Legislature and being "fair use":

5200:

You don't know what you're talking about. Period. And your citation of NOTNEWS to trivialize a woman's announcement of her pregnancy as equivalent to scoring a goal in a soccer match is an example of the structural misogyny so common here.

5164:. You know perfectly well that you need a current source to claim that a celebrity "relationship" exists "currently", and an outdated source announcing that they have begun dating fails abjectly. And an editor who commits an edit like this 5802:

make a statement without drawing some personal critique. Maybe HW should reflect on the general tone of the statement and consider how it could have been alternately expressed without the phrases of concern that Sandstein took issue with.

2434:

and re-added the SD template to the file as it had been improperly removed. I was only bringing up FFD because I remember this being discussed before but couldn't remember where when I posted the above. Related discussion can be found at

1235:

non-reproducable image. They failed by offering confusing non-policy excision justifications in their edit summary. And, in my opinion, they failed by not publicly offering recognition that they got this one wrong, after the closure.

4648:, which states that the tag should only be placed on an article which "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". The article included no fewer than five pertinent external links. QED. 4331:

Absent specific, sourced content regarding the cover image itself, nonfree book covers are generally allowed only in the article whose principal subject is the book itself. NFCC policy is much more restrictive than standard "fair use".

1804:. So, even if you had permission to show his work, held copyright on the photos, it would likely be removed under the NFCC policy, as it still wouldnt comply with our 'free' requirements, which are stricter than eg US Fair Use allows. 4566:

Knowledge-specific permission to use an image is insufficient. Only a full release, allowing anyone to use the image for any purpose, would allow use. Without a full release, the image is barred as a nonfree image of a living person.

5293:

The relationship here was only reported about three years ago, is is not well-sourced, but based on public relations copy from a subjects PR agency. So it should not be included without much more recent or more substantive sources.

5982:

above. Maybe it's a judgement call, but I don't think that the comments crossed the line. Like Wugapodes, I'm not going to unilaterally lift this block. There also seems to be concerns with whether a formal sanction exists at all.

4399:

does not appear to have a copyright notice and was created ca. 1970, so I would appreciate it if you would restore that image. As to the image in the infobox, one of the reasons I am asking for the restoration of that image is the

4505:

image has been verified by Knowledge software as orphaned. I seriously recommend that you review policy pages regarding use and maintenance of nonfree content, because your arguments mostly try to relitigate long-settled issues.

2599:

If you're not willing to explain your position, there is nothing meaningful to respond to --especially since the policy you refer to does not mention signatures and userboxes that are "political in nature" are broadly accepted.

1971: 194:

A troupe of hopefuls has been rehearsing scenes from "Peter Pan" in basements in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn. The most hopeful of all the members of the group, the Fine Arts Theatre Workshop, is its director, Miss Margo

5900:

contribution is the target of a lazy, drive-by (against-policy) deletion nomination and there isn't someone like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz around to push back against that sort of nonsense. Sorry, but this is a bad block.

499:

similarly stand without nonfree cast photos. If you're going to challenger an established pattern and practice like this, you badly need to provide policy-grounded arguments that would directly support your position,

4829: 3262:

nearly 80% of my nominations are agreed by the community. Thirdly, can I remind you that there is a real person responding to each of your comments? I don’t think you realise how hurtful some of your comments are.

266: 3194:. I would also note that describing an editor's content as "lying" or as a "lie" is not considered, by policy or practice, as a personal attack; see, for example, the comment (#1 oppose) in this currently running 2950:. Using that signature on an article talk page is a black-and-white violation of NOT policy. The only question is whether this violation is causing any meaningful disruption, and on that point I'm not convinced. 1155:

I am convinced Hullaballoo's comments that suggest he or she feels like a victim are sincere, and that they do feel like a victim, more of a victim than the people, like me, to whom they have a history of being

6450: 1382: 1820:

Exactly. I'd add simply that in a short biography like this, without any sourced commentary regarding the artist's work, a single example is generally sufficient; five examples was clear an excessive number.

5260: 4151:, but I can see how any of them would apply here. While it's great that images have been approved for use, that really doesn't mean much unless the copyright holders of the images are willing to give their 6398: 5263:

in which I believe you are the same guy involved there as well, which stated that it can be included if they are reliable source which they are indeed reliable source and confirmed by both their agencies.

3613: 1385:

spells McConnell's name Motch. My keyboard is a bit slippery and I make mistakes like that all the time. OTOH if you want it spelled that way that is fine - thought I'd let you know just in case. Regards.

4839: 3182:, did you even read what I posted? In that AFD, the nominator deliberately made false accusations against me, apparently in retaliation for solidly justified criticism of his poor AFD practices. See e.g. 1169:

every disagreement I have on the wikipedia. I always do my best to consider the other guy's point of view. And, if after I have done so, I conclude I was wrong, I say so. This is what is best for the

5351:

I couldn't help but notice your signature when I first saw it. I'm sorry to say, it stands out, and quite for the wrong reasons. It's blatantly uncivil and polemical. I see you're rather fresh off of a

4834: 3960:. 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 2041:. 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 1863:

Because the concept of "human rights" is not clearly defined and what may qualify as "human rights" is often controversial. The precise issues involved should be identified with more particularity.

1267: 1184:. It was a judgement call. Knowing how prickly Hullaballoo has shown themselves to be I thought these comments would be more likely to be effective if left at the slightly more private venue of 4026: 321:

template could be added to her user talk page as well, but a more personal note might work better if you’ve been previously engaging her on various talk pages. Basically, she should be following

4489:

process appears to have been applied by an admin to the images, and I am responding on the file pages to the extent that it seems possible to better explain a non-free-use rationale. Thank you,

1962: 424:

commentary for each image. Worse, the casts were so large that the small images were not very communicative. Even the single image that remains is probably more decorative than communicative.

3190:. No one denies this, not you, not the experienced-at-AFD nominator (who doubled down on their intentional falsehoods). My comments detailed exactly what was false. This is, quite precisely, 2527: 442:, how do you think removing the cast photos would not impact readers' understanding about the show? I.e. readers curious about the appearances of the cast while learning about TV shows, like 5917:

The fact that the block was implemented 2 weeks after the comment was made, without prompting from the editor against whom the comment was made, in a discussion where other editors actually

2552: 2510: 5642:, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other 4765: 5309:

additional recent sources which I assumed that you will still treat it as just another gossip news. There isn't any point to discuss further as our views differ and that's completely fine.

3678:

People who can't tell the difference between discussion of structural/institutional bias and of the conduct of individual editors should give up any positions of authority they hold here.

1230:. It was a near-run thing. My regular wikistalker confused one administrator, who couldn't distinguish between their bogus vandal sockpuppet edits and genuine substantive positive edits. 4237:. In San Francisco, those papers were rather iconic. My thought was that an image of a well known project by Petroni would improve the article, and add greater understanding to his work. 2548: 2485: 3631: 3070: 1612: 4950:

or anyone else trying to forcibly archive his user talk page. If you've got concerns about its length, then perhaps try discussing them with him once his account has been unblocked. --

2635:) Seriously, though, has it actually caused any such strife? I interact with people all the time who openly express their support for Donald Trump, and it's never caused me any strife. 2468: 2289:

what can/cannot go in the info box? and follow up, if the image is not placed in the info box but possibly used in the article itself could that possibly be allowed? Thanks in advance.

1645:. According to that website The Unknown Comic performed at World's of Fun on July 16, 1980 and Conway Twitty performed on July 19 & 20, 1980. If that's accurate, then I don't think 1333:, even more restrictive than US copyright law in some ways. That's the policy which matters when it comes to non-free files being used on English Knowledge. Generally, as explained in 5769:: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Knowledge yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" ( 4445:

The short answer is that such statements can be adequately conveyed by text alone, and do not require illustration. Such concepts as "long hair" and "beards" are commonly understood.

3976: 3369: 2057: 5611: 3909:

said. The WMF has made a very strong commitment to free content, and some people and photographers aren't comfortable with fully relinquishing control over their copyrighted images.

4830:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/exclusive-interview-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-candid-confessions-on-rubina-bajwas-birthday/photostory/81185284.cms

1887: 3649: 96:

In short, when deleting images, for good reason im most cases I am sure, please make sure that no encyclopedic information is lost by the blanking of the image description page. --

6326:

to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

5826: 3946: 3318:

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was correct in removing the file from the article since this type of non-free use is pretty much never allowed. I've tagged the file for speedy deletion per

2027: 287:

Miss Feiden is very open about the fact that she & Factor-ies are one and the same. The account is signing its posts here on WP (including on my user talk) as "Margo Feiden".

4916:

HW is currently blocked. Maybe it would be best to leave his user talk page as is and leave it up to him to archive if he decides to return to editing after his block expires. —

4995: 2436: 2369:

and then by explaining why on the file's talk page. The admin who review the speedy deletion tag will see what you post and may then decide that further discussion is needed at

2316:

with the message "disputed nonfree uses should be removed pending resolution of the dispute, and no one denies that this use violates NFCC#1". However, there is a discussion at

1999: 1346: 6616: 6517: 5895:

and not once have I seen the nominator defend their nominations or offer some additional commentary as to why the nomination was made. Many of them have been speedily kept or

2246: 1891: 6497: 5938:

I'm looking at this and thinking about my opinion on it in general, but if the block is based on conduct on AfD's could it not have been limited to the Knowledge namespace?

5887:

I feel obliged to comment here, primarily because my !vote at the AFD in question was "per related commentary above from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" and I specifically endorsed

1457: 5773: 5770: 6794: 6742: 6445: 2231: 1569: 5395:

alone". As one admin commented to an editor disputing such a close, "Go do something useful to improve the encyclopedia instead of pursuing this quixotic quest of yours".

2564: 1480: 547: 4888: 4868: 4840:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/7days7lovestories-rubina-bajwa-and-gurbaksh-chahal-prove-opposites-attract/articleshow/80752363.cms

3485: 6088: 2522: 1970:

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate

4835:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/punjabi/movies/news/happy-birthday-rubina-bajwa-beau-gurbaksh-chahal-shares-the-cutest-video/articleshow/81186925.cms

2966:

My view is all political messages should not be included as it contravenes WP:SOAPBOX, no matter if it's disruptive or not. Also, tell that to Hullaballoo, who states

1690: 111:

I thought the lengthy quote already in the article was sufficient, and felt that the text highlighted by the caption really added nothing substantial to the article.

6573: 6559: 6502: 6313: 3699:, I searched here and there to see how true it was, and I'm highly disappointed with what I found. The fact that every athlete is considered notable (incorretly by 6321: 4002: 2669:

since Hullaballoo is spreading his viewpoint on every page where he leaves his signature. Are you saying I can include "down with Donald Trump" in my signature?

1776: 1227: 5042: 4665:

Just an FYI, I only put the tag on there because a previous reviewer did and it was improperly removed by a different editor, not allowing for a proper decision.

2083: 1709: 1208:

Is there some policy reason why nonfree images shouldn't be in infoboxex? I couldn't find one, nevertheless, I moved it out of the infobox, when I restored it.

5069: 3183: 1830: 577: 519: 224: 6150: 2278: 209: 6845: 6779: 6727: 6300: 5701:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

3627: 2217:. I did ping you, but I don't think the ping worked (as the software doesn't like pings added to already signed sections), so leaving you this note instead. 1954: 1939: 1664: 1623: 509: 473: 455: 433: 282: 183: 120: 5820:

I'd like to respectfully disagree with this block. I have two main concerns. First, I'm not convinced that the comments were particularly vexatious. I find

5775:). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs. 1441: 78: 6840: 6688: 6676: 6135: 5766: 5713: 5221: 5195: 3502: 168: 41: 5445: 5426: 3386: 1872: 1543: 105: 62: 6335: 6295: 4599: 3361: 2746:

include "down with Donald Trump" in your signature'. Oppositional political statements tend to be less acceptable by the community than supportive ones.

1523: 1404:

Dear HW, The image File:Bernie Dresel Playing Drums.jpg license has been updated to what I hope is the most correct/appropriate. This to be used on the

1195: 917: 84: 4857:

You had no right to remove content from this page as this clearly violates wikipedia guidelines. Please revert your edits and place this content back.

1281: 969: 886: 858: 6549: 6465: 6413: 6245: 6182: 5587: 5409:

the AN/ANI archives, and when you have informed yourself sufficiently, ask yourself if this is a valuable use of your time. (For a starting point, see

4583: 4360: 3773: 3765: 3549: 1853: 1486: 5471: 2843: 2823: 2809: 2789: 2755: 2740: 2659: 2644: 674: 652: 593: 6393: 6340: 4892: 4872: 4125: 3660: 3272: 3246: 3174: 2946:

It doesn't matter if SOAPBOX mentions signatures or not because a signature is part of a talk page comment, and SOAPBOX mentions talk page comments,

1507: 355:, others will know for sure (or at least as best as possible) that she’s not just someone claiming to be Feiden; otherwise, she may be risking being 4543:

off his page. This has happened twice now with different people. I can confirm I have full permission to put his profile picture on the page as per

174:

you read the court decisions in the fights between Feiden and Al Hirschfeld/the Hirschfeld estate, you'd see that her reputation for veracity . . .

6826: 6774: 4215: 4200: 4140: 4072: 4057: 4022: 3659:

A reminder that accusing an editor of misogyny belongs in a conduct forum (such as ANI) rather than in a content forum such as AFD, as happened at

3462: 3187: 3066: 1848:

Please explain how NPOV issues are caused by stating voting record on human rights in the same manner as voting record on animal welfare is stated.

1263: 1252: 526: 164:

Dear God, is Feiden back again? She's so shamelessly self-promotional you'd think she was part of the Trump or Kardashian families. Here's the link

6669: 2611:

Well I believe the "Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!" part is political in nature and can easily cause unnessary strife in discussions. --

1558: 373: 296: 158: 6554: 5933: 5912: 5860: 5840: 5338: 5057: 4192: 4056:

that I have permission from the publishers of those images. I am unsure as to why you had deleted them. Please, undo those edits or explain why.

3731: 3724: 3139: 2814:

Yes, I realised my error immediately after my "PS" comment, so I quickly removed it - but not quickly enough to save my embarrassment, it seems.

2448: 1413: 1370: 1122: 900: 6127: 5316:

to help you do the job, as the huge amount of discussion is causing lagginess, slow loading when visting your talk page and also when replying.

4214:

crossing the line from your overdramatic orders regarding the images to now changing things that don’t even need to be changed. Get a grip bud.

3103: 2409: 2390: 6373: 5791: 4983: 4959: 4944: 4925: 4626: 4526: 4466: 4440: 4421: 4372: 3900: 6053: 5967: 5874: 5808: 4544: 3759: 6036: 5712:. Not that my opinion matters much, but as a participant in the AFD I was a bit surprised that the comments made by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at 3607: 1849: 1244: 1139: 6108: 6014: 5992: 5947: 5742: 5414: 3829: 3118: 4604:

Sorry, but that's clearly contrary to our free content policies. The image must be removed unless/until sufficient per,ission is received.

3744:

template to store the note. That's probably the best way to put it on the face of the page; a talk page comment could also have been used.

3696: 3446: 3094:

Go find something more productive to do. I'm sure there is a category somewhere that needs sorting that could benefit from your attention.

3037: 2985: 2954: 2941: 2210: 1036: 6722: 4223: 4208: 4080: 4065: 1813: 1757: 6654: 5582: 3923: 3362: 3195: 2298: 1604: 1096:. I suggest anyone who gave this issue fair consideration would agree we can refer to this as a violent image from a violent video game. 974: 5397: