User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 20

Jamie Lee Curtis

I suspect you might not like my recent edit of Jamie Lee Curtis. If so, I suggest joining the discussion on the Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Friendly notice: you may have thrown out the baby with the bath water in this recent revert. ~★ nmaia ^d 01:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images

Hi. I noticed you remove some images at Salvatore Riina, Giovanni Falcone, without updating the file page. There were already fair-use rationals for their inclusion on the pages. You claim it fails NFCC#8, but I'd have to disagree, as for example on Riina's page you removed every image except for the infobox, just a sea of text. With the rationals on the file pages I see no reason not to include the images, because they do contribute to the readers experience. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may have been dubious use rationales for the files, but that's not enough. Plus, NFCC standards are stricter than fair use. Multiple nonfree images of the same person, nonfree image of the subject's family, etc, fail NFCC standards and should be removed. And grisly images of people whose deaths may or may not be directly attributed to the article subject really are of little encyclopedic value, and especially unsuitable when their copyright status has been disputed for years. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you amend those rationals on their files then. It would not make sense to have them there without the image displayed on the pages. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As nonfree images not used in articles, they'll be deleted after a grace period. I'm certainly not going to create use rationales that I don't believe are valid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most won't be deleted as they are used on their main pages such as Capaci bombing and Pio La Torre, therefore all the other rationals that do not bear the image any longer, should be removed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazel Tucker (2nd nomination)

In 2015, you supported the deletion if the article on Helen Tucker. The vote ended with no consensus. Would you consider voting on my new nomination? -- Zanimum (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more careful?

You removed #File:b nNon-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.shana_Johnson_being_interviewed_by_Arab_TV.jpg, with an edit summary " (replaceable nonfree image, also fails WP:NFCC#8"

Since it was discussed already at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_October_27#File:Shoshana_Johnson_being_interviewed_by_Arab_TV.jpg, shouldn't you have voiced your concerns somewhere, maybe Talk:Shoshana Johnson, rather than simply removing it without any prior discussion?

NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

There was massive hysteria over the capture of Shoshana, and her comrade, the tiny blond woman. The press was all over how they were being abused while in Iraqi detention. A liar, who wanted a Green Card, told American intelligence that the women were being raped and tortured. This widely republished screenshot, of the tense and distressed Johnson being interrogated was part of the fuel to the hysteria. I think that makes the image non-replaceable. Geo Swan (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spider girls

Hello, my friend. About this, I didn't want to revert. Do you object to it existing as a non-free. Should it go through a deletion process? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image principally for failing NFCC#1 -- the article subjects are active performers and no reason has been given why a photograph can't be taken and made available as a free image. The NFCC use rationale doesn't address this, and is clearly insufficient. This is routine, and I think just letting it do through the standard orphaned image removal process is the simplest way to handle this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, my friend. Thank you. (And I promise not to ever, ever treat you like dirt.

) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berlusconi and The Economist

Sorry but I don't think you have a point regarding that issue. The picture in question has been there for ages and it has every reason to stay where it is. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Uptade: Ok thanks to your intervention the pic has been classified as an orphaned one and thus removed from Commons. Goog job sir. My congratulations. Uptade2: By the way, reading your Talk page, I noticed that you are a big fun of deleting pictures with fair-use rationals. I wonder what your problems are? I'm going to report you wherever possible because your're just harming Wikipedia with your imbecile attitude.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conte di Cavour (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)@Conte di Cavour: WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED or WP:CONTENTAGE are not acceptable justifications for non-free use. Moreover, Commons does not accept non-free content/fair use content, and such files will be deleted from Commons when they are discovered. If there's a particular non-free file you wish to use in a Wikipedia article, you should upload it locally to Wikipedia; however, before doing so you should make sure the way you want to use the file complies with non-free content use policy. There are ten non-free content use criteria which need to be satisfied for each use, and satsifying one or just some is not enough. Non-free use can be particularly tricky in some cases, so please ask for assistance at WP:MCQ and WT:NFCC if you have any questions about it.

As for the other stuff you posted above, Hullaballo Wolfwitz is quite expereinced when it comes to assessing non-free content use. This does not mean mistakes are not occasionally made, and if they are they can be fixed. However, instead of insulting Hullaballoo Wolfwitz, automatically assuming he is wrong and engaging in edit warring, it would be more constructive to civilly ask why the file was removed, and whether there is anything which can be done to resolve any non-free content policy issues it may have. In addtion, assuming the other posts you refer to on this page are automatically right because they are similar to yours is also not a really good thing to do. Non-free use needs to be assessed independently as explained in WP:OTHERIMAGE so the circumstances of these other posts might be completely different. It's also possible that those other editors are also not very familiar with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and it is they not Hullaballoo Wolfowits who is wrong. Looking at your user talk page, there are quite a lot of notifications about image use posted over many years; so, following the rationale you used above, one might jump to conclusions and assume that you do not have a very good grasp of relevant policy when it comes to image use on Wikipedia. Just as you would probably not appreciate someone seeing those posts and assuming the worst about you, you should not be so quick to assume the worst about Hullabaloo Wolfowitz.

This edit sum you left shows a common misunderstanding that many editors make when it comes to non-free content use: mistaking the US concept of fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content use policy as being one and the same. As explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE, Wikipedia's policy is purposely more restrictive than US copyright law, and it is Wikipedia's policy which needs to be satisfied, regardless of whether you believe the file qualifies as "fair use". The non-free use of magazine, book, album covers, etc. can be especially hard to justify when they are not being use as the primary means of identification in a stand-alone article about the work in question for the reasons given in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. In the Berlusconi article, this means that the particular cover of Time itself would need to be the subject of sourced critical commentary, not just comments about what the magazine reported about Berlusconi. So, just wanting to show that Berlusconi appeared on the cover is not a sufficient justification for non-free use (see item 9 of WP:NFC#UUI); there needs to be specific sourced content about the cover itself. A file such is this is only iconic or historic if reliable sources discuss it and say it is. The removal of Berlusconi from office may have been a historic event in Italian politics, but does not automatically mean (as explained in WP:ITSHISTORIC) that all media images, etc. associated with tevent are also historic.

If you believe that such content can be found and added to the article along with citations to reliable sources in support, then explain things to Explicit (the administrator who deleted File:The Economist "Berlusconi Basta" cover (2006).jpg from Wikipedia: it was not uploaded to Commons) to consider "undeleting" it or make a request for undeletion at WP:REFUND, Files which are deleted are not gone forever, but rather they are only hidden from public view. Non-free files can be restored if their intended use is judge to comply with relevant policy. Another option might be to ask the the file be temporarily restored, so that it's non-free use can be further discussed at WP:FFD. For what it's worth, if I would have come across this type of non-free use, I would've likely removed the file from the article as well for the same reasons given by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz based upon the way the filke was being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz deletion spree. GAB^gab 01:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the above notice. The thread has been closed without any prejudice to you or your editing. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FUR

You will notice that there is a fair use rationale on the image. If you feel it was placed incorrectly, or is not valid, argue for it there. Removing an image for an unspecified consensus is wrong. Furthermore, WP:BRD. Where's the discussion? Not at the image. Not on the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That fair use rationale is only applicable to the album article, and can't serve for an use of the image in Terry Scott Taylor. And even if there was one for an use in Terry Scott Taylor, it is highly unlikely that it would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Just to add to what Jo-Jo Eumerus posted, just changing the article paramater like this without further revising the rationale according is not really a valid justification for the new non-free use per WP:JUSTONE; so, in my opinion, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removal of the file was correct. WP:NFC#cite_note-3 is pretty clear on how album cover art may be used; so, when a stand-alone article about an album is merged into an article about the artist, the non-free use justification for any album covers being used also needs to be a reassessed. The non-free use rationale is this album cover is for one being used as the primary means of identification at the top of a stand-alone article about the album, not in a sub-section about the album in the artist's article. Moving {{infobox album}} as part of a merge, does not automatically mean any non-free album cover(s) being used in the original infobox should also be moved. Unfortunately, how non-free image use will be affected by such merges is something often not touched on in AfD's like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge & Innocence even though it's something always impacted. I've pointed this out in other AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Nights at Freddy's: The Twisted Ones, but was told such reassessing was part of the normal process. It's not apparently as normal as some believe, but rather depends upon how aware those participating in the AfD, closing the AfD, or doing the subsequent merge are of WP:NFCC. Perhaps, something about this needs to be added to WP:MERGE, WP:AFD, WP:AFDAI, or somewhere else so that editors/closers are made better aware of this kind of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much else to add, except that there was a lengthy discussion several years ago which covered, inter alia, the analogous question of whether nonfree book covers could be used when the individual book article was merged into an author bio or series article -- and the conclusion, as here, was generally against the use. As Marchjuly notes, the matter is clearly address on the NFC page and no extended discussion is required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate the image for deletion as its article does not exist and, according to you, the FUR is invalid. I'll be glad to debate it there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Terry Scott Taylor, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. There is a fair use rationale and so removing the image is wrong. Removing referenced content is also incorrect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is required, Walter, and you're not showing it here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While you may be in the "right" you posted on his talk page as if you were an Administrator - that's a big no-no. You don't have the authority to block, you're just another editor, and "last warnings" are bad form. Shape up, mate. Take him to ANI if that is what is requried.104.169.28.113 (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Casey

Hi there, you removed an edit made by myself on Paddy Caseys page citing it as unsourced gossip, I have known Casey the past two years through his relationship with Sophia, this information is correct, Wikipedia is a forum where all are entitled to contribute information they may have, you have removed my contribution for being correct. In this instance you are sorely wrong. KO0506 (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Um, even if that information is correct it needs to be sourced especially since it's information about a living person, and that information was not sourced. And no, you are not entitled to contributing unsourced information about a living person. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward E. Kramer

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Please respond to your email or put your response here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drdbkarron (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File PROD

Hello again. I noticed that you have continued to remove images from articles, i.e. orphaning them, mainly on grounds of not meeting WP:NFCC#8. This year, we have extended {{subst:prod}} to files per RfC discussion at WT:PROD. {{subst:deletable image-caption}} has also added another parameter to fill in a reason for deletion, i.e. one of CSD types or PROD. I wonder whether you have known the changes. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the current AN/I thread...

...take it to FFD and don't edit war. The image was a FUR so it is not "obvious" per the policy. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The exact issue -- nonfree book covers in author bios -- has been discussed repeatedly at MCQ and elsewhere, and the essentially unanimous conclusion has been that, in the absence of substantive discussion about the covers themselves, such uses are NFCC violations. That still-pending discussion does not invalidate specific, settled consensus and require that every patently disallowed use be relitigated ad nauseam. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and insisting that established consensus be reestablished every time an issue arises is just disruption to make a point. You know better. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Wilder

Hi, you have put a redirect on Honey Wilder's page. I see that you have REDIRECTed the page to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. As Honey Wilder is a separate entity, her separate page should stay. I am removing your REDIRECT. Request you to not to put it again. Thanks, Vikram Maingi (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your multiple removals of the redirect for the page were incorrect and contrary to established practice. In the absence of substantive sourced content regarding the article subject, consensus calls for redirecting the article to the page regarding the only sourced claim of significance. This consensus is confirmed by many AFD discussions relating to not only adult film performers, but also, within the erotica industry, Penthouse Pets and even Playboy Playmates. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion

Hello. This is related to an appropriate redirect for Janet Jacme you created [2], which was reverted [3] which was then restored by me [4] and then was reverted again by the same editor [5]. First, I wasn't aware that consensus had developed for creating redirects as an alternative to AfD (as noted in the above section). In any case, I moved this article to Draft space. There is a discussion about this on my talk page here, if you would like to chime in. I am hoping you do. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 08:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wadsworth Jarrell

Hi there. I saw that you removed the photograph of Jae Jarrell here in the Wadsworth Jarrell article under the rationale that "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It does indeed pass the policy to be included in the article, just like the paintings that are placed in the article. This article, which was reviewed in great detail many years ago (including photos and fair use usage) features an entire section that discusses the work Revolutionary, in which Jarrell took influence from Jae Jarrell's iconic fashion design to create one of his most groundbreaking and famous paintings. I have reverted your edits, as this photograph is important in explaining this context. Without seeing a photograph of the dress, one may not quite understand the concept of the dress, the intimidation it is meant to show, and frankly it helps to provide context that I do believe would be detrimental to understanding how it influenced Jarrell's "revolutionary" work that was dedicated to Angela Davis. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and if you wish to discuss this further please bring it up on the talk page of the article so we can get more feedback. Missvain (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

For providing a reason to laugh heartily in that place most devoid of necessary humor, ANI. Thanks for puncturing some pomposity. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Close

Frankly I am not going to bother re-opening it since its just a waste of your time. You know your interpretation and implementation of NFC is correct, almost every other editor with a cluepon knows its correct. Let Swarm have his last word. Suffice to say the utter bullshit they responded to me with is a good indication of their level of knowledge of how NFC is handled and considered. (Not to mention general practice, closing a discussion you have have opined in almost straight after commenting? Ha.) The photo one however probably should have been left in with a discussion on the talkpage first. Its not obviously a invalid use and in this *particular* case the photo is inextricably bound up with the caption. The story had it been printed entirely in text 'Israeli policeman beats up palestinian' and it later turned out to be incorrect is a non-story. It likely wouldn't have even made the news to require a correction in the first place. The only reason it became a thing is because of the photo. You *could* describe it entirely in prose, but without the photo to provide emotive context its not really possible to adequately describe its impact. I am quite confident any discussion would come down on the side of inclusion based on that argument alone. I agree on the others however. Softlavender in their final comment does actually put their finger on why they also do not understand NFC enforcement. Note the lack of 'valid' in their comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With my compliments-

File:Bob Burns with bazooka 1937.jpg :) We hope (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 13:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your utter incompetence is not my problem. This ia as phony a complaint as is imaginable. It is hard to see this post as anything but dishonest. I am asking for sanctions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A slight tweak can sometimes yield big results

Hi Hullaballo Wolfowitz. I do think you'd save yourself quite a bit of aggravation if (as I suggested in #RFU files) you make a slight change in your approach. This will allow you to continue doing the good work you do assessing NFCCP problems and also kind of make others have to focus on the quality of your edits instead of on you. Just tag anything you feel to be a violation of NFCC#1 with a template and leave it for an admin to deal with it. You can be bold a remove the file once, but just tag it with the rfu template if its re-added. If someone wants to dispute it, then they can follow the template's instructions and do so. F5 deletions take at least five days, whereas F7 deletions take at least two. If someone wants to edit war over the template, let them do so. They will end up being the one trying to explain themselves at ANI or AN3.

Same goes for any NFCC#8 violations you come across; be bold and remove the file, but use {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}, prod, or even FFD if it's re-added. NFCC#10c violations and items 1 and 2 of WP:F7 are probably the only things going to be considered WP:NOT3RR, so just pass the baton to someone else for anything else after the first revert. Your assessments seem to be accurate and so they will most likely only be reaffirmed by a reviewing admin or an FFD consensus. If the file continues to be added after being removed by and admin or FFD discussion, then you would be justified per NOT3RR to continue to remove it and will be able to cite the admin's edit or FFD discussion in your edit sum each time you do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

Hi. I don’t know much about non free use and you seem to. Can I ask you something? I uploaded this image of a murdered person for the article about the murder. I can’t find a free picture of the victim. Is it appropriate (under US law and WP guidelines) to use this image on that page? If so, a bot is asking for a “tag”; do you know what that means? —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a fair case on the subjects biography a non-free picture (as they are deceased) would be acceptable due to the inability to get a free one. On the article about the murder what the victim looks like is almost never going to be relevant or add anything useful, so it would fail. -edit- Ah I see there is no biography and everything relevant is in the 'Murder' article. That could go either way. Personally I would say its not a valid case for a non-free image. Plenty of people would argue either way. Probably needs an FFD. There is a credible argument (but not one I agree with) that as all the biographical info is in the murder article, it meets the minimal use. US law is largely irrelevant, as ENWP applies stricter standards for fair use than would otherwise be the case in the US. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll just let the bot delete the image, I think. —Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ho, ho, ho

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

AfC submissions
Random submission

~6 weeks

1,060 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. K. Saraswathi image removal

The image contained still photos of C. K. Saraswathi as she featured in two films - one when she was young and the other when she was older. What does it have with the person living or dead? I have taken screen shots from those movies and uploaded it just as an identification because there were other actresses with same name. I can't understand the logic of removing film screen shots because her death is not quoted with a citation. --UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC, implementing WMF policy, bars use of nonfree images to illustrate the articles of living persons, absent unusual circumstances not claimed or present here. An uncited claim in another Wiki[edia article that a person has died, absent any supporting evidence, is not sufficient to establish that a person has died, especially when common sources indicate she is still alive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I write articles in good faith. I never create articles with matters unknown to me personally. Even when I cite sources, I thoroughly read the whole article before quoting. I personally know that she is dead. But I am unable to find a citation because she died in 1997 when Internet was not widely used in India. I have to find newspaper hard copies in either libraries or in the newspaper publishing houses. I am not in a position to do such strenuous work. Therefore, let my effort and time (and expenses) in creating that image go waste.--UKSharma3 (User | talk | Contribs) 01:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Award winner please assist in allowing me to get it right before removing

Hi Hullaballo Wolfowitz. The respect is earned, so with my first impression of your namesake it's no doubt a frustrating first impression. There were several links provided as additional references to have me fully correct what you initially removed from the section "casting". Mark a win up in that category for me I guess. However it now seems this has enraged you to go in and try to do more removal without provocation on every image but 1 for the page Up_on_High_Ground_(TV_series). I do know you'd save yourself quite a bit of aggravation if you would send me a mere talk page message first before presuming the images are replaceable non-free images. Copyright is indeed held by its photographer or company. If you would follow what you were awarded with on the The Wikipedia Excellence Award and actually find that that the sources of these images are straight from the internet official TV show website with no copyright infringement disclaimer thus they are free. Also these are found on flikr and tv.com. It's clear these screenshots are NOT violations when diminished in quality and size as accurately identified as nonfree on their file description pages. Please save the page as it was before you discovered it and just tag anything you feel to be a violation of NFCC#-whatever with a template and leave it for an admin or better yet me who wrote the page to deal with it. You can just tag it with the {{request edit}} User talk:Techform. Moreover if its something like this that you feel so strongly about like in the history edit to simply note it's "clutter", for a TV page that helps articulate a story with TV screenshots. I don't understand your rationale? What a short and inconclusive assessment of you to spend time removing or perhaps even vandalizing. If someone wants to dispute it, then they can follow the template's instructions and do so. A gross violations of WP:NFCC, patently invalid use rationales and Content disputes are a hearty appetite to use in bulk on 1 page like this.

Can you please explain your suggestions so I can perhaps use commons, or even better NFCC reasons for the pictures? I spent some valuable time getting this page well rounded and would like to get this back to its previous edit with images instead of removing them please. With respect, and frustration... the tone of this is asking for help, no disrespect, i'm just frazzled. User talk:Techform Techform (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Gun Kelly (rapper)

Greetings. Hope all is well. I would like to have MGK’s name corrected on wikipedia. His name currently reads as “Richard Colson Baker”, but it should read “Colson Baker”. Can you please make sure that every area that references his name is changed to “Colson Baker” CloserNYC (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the name as presented in the article appears to be well-sourced. If you want it changed, you'll need to present reliable sources showing the name as currently reported is incorrect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

inadvertent rm

Hey, if you look at Ceoil's talk, as far as I can tell somehow you inadvertently rm'd my last msg when you were rm'ing that img. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, sorry about that. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're also protesting the concept of archiving talk pages. Up the academy, brother! Stick it to The Man. :-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That Userbox

When I logged on today, I noticed that you had removed the non-free image (or whatever it was called), which I am completely fine with. However, this means the box currently has no image. Is there a way I could obtain a valid image for the box? Awesome Diamonds (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this is against policy, but I will quickly bump this Awesome Diamonds (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image of book cover on David Meade (author)

Thanks for your comment that " it is well-settled that WP:NFCC does not allow nonfree book cover images to be used as general illustrations in author bios." I was not aware of this convention (obviously) - to avoid making similar mistakes in future, can you point me to where such decisions are available? --Gronk Oz (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gronk Oz: I wasn’t aware of it either. Btw, I’m still doing improvements to the David Meade article on occasions. I did found out that his prediction was also labeled as hype in a news Washington Post has relating to th Doomsday Clock. I also changed the section “Reception” to “Reactions”. —LovelyGirl7 talk 01:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Refer to WP:NFC#cite_note-3 for more specific details, but non-free cover art (e.g., book, album, magazine, etc.) is generally allowed when it's used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes or at the tops of stand-alone articles about the works in question. So, if someone wants to write an article about the book (see WP:NBOOK) and use the file for identification purposes in that article, then that type of non-free use would typically be considered OK. Use of non-free cover art in other articles or sections of other articles is much harder to justify and the long-standing consensus has been that it usually only considered apporpriate when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary. Simply saying that person A wrote book B and then adding a non-free image of book B's cover is highly unlikely to be sufficient context to satisfy NFCC#8, which is why I agree with HW's assessment of the non-free use in this particular case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: That Planet X book was written by Meade himself. Do you think the article is fine without it though? —LovelyGirl7 talk 02:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. I think it's fine to mention that Meade wrote the book, but I don't think you need to see a cover of the book to understand that. If you want to add more content specifically related to the book's cover to the article (e.g., perhaps there was some controversy over its selction, Meade is also an artist who created the cover, or it otherwise was the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources), then it might be possible to justify the non-free use of the file in the article. However, a cover image is not needed simply because Meade wrote the book and there is content in the article that says he wrote the book. That type of use is considered to be pretty much WP:DECORATIVE and is typically not allowed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: It does kinda suck that the cover of Meade’s book isn’t aloud in the article due to Wikipedia policies. I think my article looks good, with or without it. What about a picture of David Meade (would it work better than the Planet X book)? —LovelyGirl7 talk 04:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A freely licensed or public domain image of Meade could be used, but a non-free image of him would most likely not meet WP:FREER. In general, non-free images of living persons are only rarely considered acceptable under certain specific conditions (see item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI for some of these). This is because Wikipedia's non-free content use policy encourages us to use free licensed images of living whenever such content exists or there is a reasonable expection that it can be created. People might not know who Meade really is, but if he's out in public giving interviews or making other appearances such as book signings, etc. then it seems reasonable to expect that someone could take a photo of him, and then upload it to Commons under a free license. You can if you want try to email the copyright holders of any images you may see online of Meade per WP:PERMISSIONS and see it you can get them to agree to release them or donate them under a free license accepted by Wikipedia. Maybe Meade or his representatives would be willing to donate an image per WP:DONATEIMAGE.

Finally, just one minor but very important thing about Wikipedia. You wrote in you last post I think my article looks good, with or without it. Techically, there are no "my articles" in Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Ownership of content; in other words, the subject and creator of a article do not have a final editorial control over the article's content. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and article improvements are made by being bold and through consensus. Everytime you click the "Publish changes" button, you are basically agreeing to give anyone anywhere in the world permission to revise or even remove whatever content you just added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that, @Marchjuly: that's one mistake I won't make again. Now I'll go and make a different mistake instead...

--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: I was talking about the book cover (that my article is fine with or without it. I do see some David Meade images on Google Images, but I wonder which one will Wikipedia accept (or where do you find the license for them)? For example, I found this one [6] for example, but I wonder where does it say which license it comes from. —LovelyGirl7 talk 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about your referring to David Meade (author) as "my article" has nothing to do with image use. As I posted, there are no "my articles" on Wikipedia per WP:OWN, so even though you may have created the article written about Meade, it is technically not your article so to speak. As for the image you linked to, its best to assume that any content you find online is protected by copyright unless (1) it clearly says that it has been released under a free license compatible with WP:COPY or (2) you have a very strong reason to believe that the content falls wthin the public domain. In the case of (1), you still need to be careful because quite a number of people, companies, organizations, etc. upload photos, etc. that they do not hold the copyright on to their websites, and some of these then might even mistakenly claim ownership over whatever they upload. This might be fine for them, but it's not fine for Wikipedia or Commons. Regarding public domain (case (2)), this typically means that the content is too simple to be eligible for copyright protection, or so old that its copyright is considered to have expired. There are other reasons why things on in the public domain, but complexity (or lack thereof) and age seem to be two of the main ones.

The image of Meade you linked to was uploaded to some organization's website. It seems unlikely that they are the original creators of the image, rather whoever wrote this probably just found the photo online and decide to use it for the story. The photo looks like it's attributed to "Planet X News", so maybe they own the copyright on the image. You might want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions for help because someone there might be able to figure out were the image originally came from and how its licensed. Maybe the original creator of the image did release it under a free license, but that needs to be verified. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Thank you. I brought up "my article" when I was refering to the Planet X book image. I will ask media copyright questions about the Meade images (I did). --LovelyGirl7 talk 01:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awards being added from ip

156.194.53.205 (talk · contribs)

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I reverted this ip's addition of multiple awards to Stormy Daniels, because it looks too similar to past award spamming. You seem to keep good track of which awards are spam or not noteworthy. I'd appreciate your help figuring out which of the awards this ip has added should remain, if any. --Ronz (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'

Problematic editor

Saw your comments at the AfD on Peter Wang (cadet) and I think you hit the nail on the head. Check out bottom of my talkpage. Legacypac (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

integrity of living persons

Thank you for articles around science fiction, such as The Pirates of Zan and The Planet on the Table, illustrated by cover art, for Kenneth S. Fagg, for many "create as redirect" and deletion discussions, for watching over biographies of living persons, and editors who are living persons, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

seconded. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. I used to see you around more, swung by your page to see whether you're still active. Delighted to see that your are!E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1867 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

FYI that this has been filed by another user. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, I'm Anchorvale. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, A. J. McCarron, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 00:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lane

The SI image in the Lisa Lane article is eligible as it meets the Non-free media rationale for Lisa Lane. IQ125 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Conroy Goldston image

Hi Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I saw you removed File:Robert Goldston01.jpg from the article. Just in case you didn't notice, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg. There is a claim that this person is dead, thus the article is not really a BLP. I had a lengthy discussion about this with the closing admin at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2017/August#Close for FFD about the non-free use of File:Robert Goldston01.jpg just for reference. I'm not saying the file shouldn't be removed. I did tag it for speedy deletion per NFCC#1, but that was declined here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That FFD discussion really shows off a major problem with NFCC enforcement. NFC policy requires that a disputed image be removed from an article absent consensus that it meets NFCC requirements. However, FFD practice too often treats no consensus (on NFCC issues) as defaulting to keep. I think the closing admin would have been better advised to remove the image from the bio page and, unless either a satisfactory rationale was provided or an appropriate use was found in a different article within the standard time, let automatic deletion take its course. Which is what should happen now. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW he is most certainly dead. It just cant be reliably sourced online. I expect there are print obits. The main problem is that he died in Palma in the Spanish islands in the early 80's. The L’Enciclopèdia d’Eivissa i Formentera (a local council/governement encyclopedia specific to the islands) shows him as dying in 1982, and there are forum posts from his grandchildren online that state that date (and place). As one of them said - 'No one asked us'. Best bet if you wanted a reliable source would be to try and get hold of some newspapers from the time. Otherwise I agree with everything HW has said. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why shouldn't that qualify as an RS? At first glance, it looks better than all sorts of sites that have been deemed acceptable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would broadly agree. And tbh I would expect the local government (or chamber of commerce/tourism, its something along those lines) to keep tabs on its notable citizens and know if they were dead or not. But I dont speak Spanish, so I would be happier if a Spanish-speaking editor would give the site a once-over regarding its setup, who runs it, who contributes etc. Its certainly the most authoritive non-primary thing I found online. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @HW: I agree with what you posted, especially about "no consensus" defaulting to "keep" for NFCC discussion and everything about the NFCC does, IMO, suggest that it shouldn't be done. However, there are those who think an NFCC FFD should be closed exactly the same as any other XfD, so they keep no consensus files. Until this is clearly clarified one way or another, it's likely to continue. FWIW, I rfu'd the file, but that was declined; I then FFD'd the file and the best argument that the other side come come up with was basically WP:BDP is unrealistic. I also asked at BLPN about whether Goldston can be treated as deceased for Wikipedia's purposes and the clear consensus was that he can't and that the file shouldn't be used. I meant to go back and FFD it again, but forgot about the file until the article showed up on my watchlist when you removed it.

@OID: I tried to find something to source his death, but never had any luck. Maybe asking about the one you found at RSN could help determine whether it's an RS. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The file has been re-added to the article. This why letting automatic deletion take its course does not always go as planned, especially with F5 removals. So, it's probably best to start another FFD on this so that it can be resolved once and for all since the only other option would likely lead to edit warring. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HW and Only in death. I didn't directly ping either of you, but if you'd like to comment at WT:NFC#Non-free use of File:Sue Williams.jpg since there are similarities between the non-free use of that file and the non-free use of the Goldston file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Removing An Image

Dear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you have removed the image File:Mosharraf Karim.jpg from Mosharraf Karim for staying in infobox. You gave a reason that it was non-free and stayed in infobox. I have a question, cant a image stay at infobox if it is non-free? Thank you.- Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the rule deals with nonfree images in BLPs, that is, biographies of living persons. The general rule, based on Wikimedia Foundation policy, is that nonfree images of living persons aren't allowed in their biographies, with very limited exceptions for cases like prisoners serving life sentences and fugitives. See WP:NFCC#1. However, there are also narrow exceptions when the image itself is the subject of specific sourced commentary in the article. In those cases, which are rare, the image should be placed inline, adjacent to the text commenting on it. An infobox image is intended as a general illustration, not one illustrating a specific section of text. I'd also note that the file page contains two significant errors -- first, the page provides no reason why the file cannot be replaced by a free image, which generally means that it cannot be used; second, it states that the file is available under a noncommercial use license (which is to some degree relevant to our use of news agency and similar images), but the source page actually has a standard copyright notice and the statement "Any unauthorized use or reproduction of The Daily Star content for commercial purposes is strictly prohibited and constitutes copyright infringement liable to legal action". That is not a noncommercial use release or license. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:, Thank you very much. I got the point.- Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 04:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Dubowitz

As per the above, you removed the image above, which I have restored. Don't remove it, the person is dead. It is courteous to leave a message. scope_creep (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the article subject provided has died. The use rationale says nothing about the subject having died. He is currently listed as alive in university directories. He was making public appearances as recently as last spring. You need to provide reliably sourced information otherwise to demonstrate your claim. Otherwise, you have no business telling any other editor not to remove presumptive NFCC policy violations. Period. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Victor Dubowitz. You should communicate, but your bolshie parasitical attitude sets people off, because you don't communicate. I have now got a red disruptive warning, the first ever, because you don't want to talk. scope_creep (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your input regarding my illegal and seemingly politically motivated block. It seems that there’s just no way to edit articles that are sensitive to some people without them getting their feelings hurt and claiming bad faith. They want the article to say exactly what they want and nothing more. BigDwiki (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC) BigDwiki (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image inclusion or exclusion criteria clarification

Hello, I am requesting your input in the talk page on Richard Felix Staar. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Again, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I have just noticed the detailed answer to another question addressed to you, under the title About Removing An Image in your talk page here. The exact question that the other user was having about removal of an image in infobox of an article that is a BLP, is the question I was having as well. In both cases you are citing WP:NFCC#1 as the reason for deletion. Then you go on in elaborating further by saying among other things that "that nonfree images of living persons aren't allowed in their biographies". Could you please point me to the official rules of Wikipedia that say that? So far I have only found WP:NFCC#1: "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."; I could see how the part that says "or could be created" is maybe the key clause that your point is based in. However, that NFCC#1 is so brief that it can have multiple interpretations, and I wonder if somewhere else in the official rules of Wikipedia that point/rule is unpacked. Thank you.(talk) user:Al83tito 15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The headnote to WP:NFCC directs users to WP:NFC for fuller discussion of the applicable standards. WP:NFC#UUI#1 states that nonfree "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing" are not acceptable uses; while there are very narrow exceptions, those apply to prisoners serving lengthy or life sentences, fugitives and insurgents, and others in similar situations, not applicable here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use Image

I am going to be direct. In March 2018, you deleted a fair use image on the page of a recording artist. You gave the reason for removal as "obviously replaceable." The image is from a 1969 Newsweek article and clearly not replaceable, (the photo was taken fifty years ago). The image lived on the artist's Wikipedia page and on Wikipedia Commons for many years, providing educational, encyclopedic information for readers. Not only did you delete the image, you removed the entire image file from Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons, so that there is no history of the image. Either you do not understand the rules of fair use, or this was an act of spite, or both. The image was backed up by a clear, well reasoned rational. Because you deleted the entire image file, you made it impossible for anyone to read the rational. You unilaterally made the decision that no one can ever see the image and rational. If you were incorrect in removing the image, you are making sure no one can question your decision. Your motives are suspect. This appears to be a case of vandalism. Magdalamar (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)Just for reference, Hullaballoo Wolfwitz is not an administrator, and only administrators can delete files, etc. HW can, of course, nominate files for deletion or discussion, or be bold and remove them if he feels that their use does not comply with relevant policy and guidelines just like any other editor can, but such files are typically reviewed by an administrator before being deleted. If you know the name of the deleted file, then you can figure out which administrator deleted the file and ask them for clarification. If you don't remember the file's name, then the name of the article from which it was deleted can be used to track down the image. If a mistake was made, then it was made in good faith and perhaps the file can be restored via WP:REFUND. A deleted file is not gone forever, but rather only hidden from public view and can be restored if whatever issue led to its deletion is later resolved. Moreover, when files are removed, the uploader is typically notified on their user talk page by either the editor who did the removing, a bot, or an editor who works on file maintenance issues; so, if you uploaded the file, you should've received a notification regarding it.

Some other things. Commons does not accept non-free content per c:COM:FAIR. So, if the file was mistakenly uploaded to Commons, then it was properly deleted. Also, being in use for a long time is not typically a good indication of valid non-free use per WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED; it could just be an indication that nobody noticed the file's non-free use did not comply with relevant policy until HW did. Finally, you should be careful about WP:NOTVANDAL since removing inappropriate non-free images is not vandalism at all, but a necessary action. Once again, if a mistake was made, then the best thing to do is to ask for clarification instead of making accusations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one's an open-and-shut case. The disputed nonfree image was used in, and depicts, Lotti Golden. That article includes three free images of Golden, a living person, so nonfree images of her are generally barred by WP:NFCC#1. The article includes no discussion of the disputed image, a bog-standard publicity shot. Magdalamar appears to be an SPA who edits primarily on matters related to Golden and probably has WP:COI issues. Their talk page shows that quite a few other images of Golden they uploaded have been deleted for failing NFCC requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really invested to go change it, but that last section 're-emergence in 2010' is playing silly buggers with sourcing. The photo is not listed as one of the photographers favorites (as the WP article indicates) in context its talking about the level of fame of the subject and its impact on the photos. Secondly there is no indication its anything to do with a 're-emergence' in that source, since it doesnt indicate when the photo was from (previously unpublished means it could be from anywhere in her career) and its a restrospective of a photographer, nothing to do with her personally. I havnt taken a look at the rest of the article, but if the use of sources is that... flexible a talkpage stalker might want to have a browse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Louise Pearce – Image

Regarding your position on the image previously at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nicole-Pearce-Paul-Luckman-1982-Booking-Photo-Mug-Shot.png:

"This is a replaceable nonfree image of a living person who has served their prison sentence, and is therefore not allowed under NFCC#1. There is no policy-based claim of an exception for "booking photos"

I will be resubmitting this image with the following further explanation:

This media is a booking photo of Paul Luckman, now known as Nicole Pearce, produced in the regular operations of Queensland and New South Wales Police, widely circulated in print, television and later film, from May 7, 1982 and onwards, in the public domain.

The picture preserves the individual's unique brush with the law for posterity.

Source: New South Wales Police department of photographic records.

Found at various independent sources: For example: The Canberra Times, Friday 3 Dec 1982; Buried Alive, Crime Investigation Australia, Channel 9, Season 3, Episode 9; and Daily Mail (Online) "Australia’s most sadistic child killer Robin Reid, who shaved victims’ hair as trophies, will kill again if released", Candace Sutton, 16 May 2014 (see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2628740/Sadistic-Australian-child-killer-Robin-Reid-maim-kill-boys-released-prison.html).

Author: Unknown photographer, source only given as "New South Wales Police department of photographic records." No explicitly freely-licensed image is suitable for illustrating the subject's arrest, is likely to be found or become available, however this image has been repeatedly published across print, television and film since 1982.

The work used will be of inherently lower quality than the original photograph reducing the risk of any competitiveness and therefore the effects of this copy on the market for any value of versions held by any possible copyright owner.

{{Non-free use rationale 2 | Description = Booking photograph. | Author = New South Wales Police | Source = Released to print, television and film media from May 7, 1982, extensively republished/rebroadcast/rescreened since. | Article = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Louise_Pearce | Purpose = Illustrate convicted offender. | Replaceability = None. | Minimality = Extra low-resolution and size, already public domain, usually without copyright citation. | Commercial = 0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimescrutineer (talk • contribs) 16:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How nice. Since that has nothing to do with complying with NFCC#1, I'll remove it again. You also don't need a mugshot to understand that someone was arrested, so it's an obvious failure of NFCC#8. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission to use this image and it will hold online in perpetuity. Quick, proud, smarmy and mindless deletion of images serves no one. Thankfully more prudent editors ultimately prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimescrutineer (talk • contribs) 16:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. But perpetuity apparently ran out earlier today. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sonu Tatawat

WP:UPNOT: An editor's FULL listing of social media, website and email addresses is not "standard user page of new user" as it is NOT related to Wikipedia. Every page I've tagged similar to that were deleted by administrators. If you disagree, feel free to comment. --Cahk (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UPNOT does not say anything of the kind. It does, however, say that In general other users' user pages are managed by that user. Except for blatant or serious matters, it is preferable to try contacting the user before deletion (see above). However, unambiguous copyright violations, attack pages, promotional text, and privacy or BLP violations can be speedy deleted using a suitable template, such as {{db-attack}}, {{db-copyvio}} or {{db-spamuser}}, other pages likely to require deletion (or where remedial action is not taken) may be submitted to deletion discussion.

Take special care to speak appropriately and explain the concern; many users will take it as a personal affront or attack if an unknown user announces they are going to delete a userspace image or page and an uncivil or heavy duty approach can discourage new users who are unaware of expectations and might enjoy contributing. Remember that a limited amount of personal information (perhaps a short biography) and a freely licensed tasteful personal photograph or two are usually allowed.

Your failure to comply with these requirements is far more disruptive than a new editor's clumsiness, and your own userpage, festooned with crappy self-celebrating userboxes, has rather little to do with Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals. Pay attention to the beam in your own eye. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]