HalJor

Spam?

You recently edited the page on male escort, removing a valid link to a popular sex-worker's blog. If you had taken time to look further into the page, you will also see that additional sexworker blog links are listed. This is NOT a spam issue. I'm reposting. User talk:24.243.5.91

Blogs are not valid external links -- see WP:EL, section 4, point 11. Thanks for pointing out the others, I'll delete those as well. HalJor 21:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Blogs CAN be valid external links, as there is no definitive rule against them when the blog pertains directly to the involved page subject. I would say that this blog fits that criteria. You can continue to abuse your power to edit the page, but know that I will repost. User talk:24.243.5.91

While the blog in question is written by an alleged call boy, much of the content is not relevant. Among the articles I see are: my Ipod, a trip to Thailand, an absentee landlord, chocolate, and the Middle East. It could easily be seen as self-promotion, which would violate WP:COI and WP:NOT HalJor 22:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You say tomato... Just because you may not find a callboy's musings acceptable for this page doesn't mean it should be nixed in-whole. You have yet to definitively prove that this is a totally disallowed activity on Wiki. It's a pair of blogs written by flesh-and-blood male escorts. This is where the buck stops. User talk:24.243.5.91

Ooops

Fat acceptance - kinda like it says - thanks for picking that up - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comics Cleanup

You are one of the best editors working on comics-related articles on Wikipedia. I'd like to inite you to join the new WikiProject I've started: WikiProject Comics Cleanup. Similarly to how the WP:CMC collaboration works to elevate articles to Featured Article status, the primary goal of this new project is to coordinate group cleanup efforts on articles, copy editing, condensing, and providing citations where needed. The secondary goal is to remind good editors that there are other good editors who have the same goals.

This will also help prepare articles for Wikipedia 1.0 assessment, a project I am currently working on pulling together for WP:CMC. I'd really appreciate your membership, but I do understand if you find yourself to be too busy to participate. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (comedy)

I've created Wikipedia:Notability (comedy) to help editors in deciding the notability of comedy- and humor-related articles. You are an editor whom I respect and admire. I would appreciate any commentary you may be able to provide to help hammer it into shape. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

removal of link

The link that you have removed twice from the 'adhesive tape' page is a legitimate link that points to TapeInfo.com. This site, although a commercial site, has an adhesive tape search engine that allows users to find the tape they are looking for from over 10,000 tapes from the world's best tape manufacturers.

This search engine was developed by industry professionals and is endorsed by all of them. Most industrial manufacturers use tape, and getting the 10,000 datasheets, cross-references and specifications that this site offers is of great use to the engineers, operations managers and purchasing managers in these industries.

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to remove 'advertising' from Wiki, but I have included this link in good faith. As a compromise, I will not link to the TapeInfo Homepage, but will instead link to its Find-A-Tape main page. This is the page that describes all the searching methods for finding tapes and datasheets.

Please communicate with me directly if this is not going to work for you. A resolution is best made in this manner, in my opinion. Thank you.

Referring to Wikipedia:External_links, specifically 1.3.4: "Links to be avoided: Links that are added to promote a site, *that primarily exist to sell products or services*, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." HalJor 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of link continued

If you notice, both tape glossaries listed on the adhesive tape page link to companies selling products and services. This page that I linked to is not 'advertisey' and as a matter of fact contains no advertisements. I don't know why you chose this category to target, but I have been in the tape industry for a long time and this is the best site I've seen for researching tapes and finding datasheets. Your removal of this link is frankly insulting. It is of no consequence to anyone that this site is owned by a for-profit company. The information presented is unbiased, useful and simply the best on the Web. Please do not revert this link. Thank you.

I stand by my earlier statement, regarding Wikipedia's policy (which I notice you did not dispute, although you did point out other apparent violations). On the other hand, I have better things to do than argue with you. HalJor 20:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

For correcting my typo on the erotic spanking page. I have no idea what the "Folsom Steet Fair" is, and yet that's what I wrote. Edward Wakelin 03:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

fisting references

Hi. You've put a bunch of references to "Herrman 1991" at fisting, but that's not enough to find what you are trying to cite. Can you make it a full citation that includes the name of the journal or book, date, publisher, etc.? Thanks. --Strait 17:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see what you did. I'm going to see if there's a more elegant way of handling it. --Strait 17:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello, I saw your comment on Power Top and would like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies - we would be delighted to have you! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT 1.7.3

While I agree with your removing of radio station lineups, it's hard for me to defend your position when you cite a rule... that is seemingly not there? Can you tell me what policy you are trying to cite? Thanks. JPG-GR 01:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain that, at the time I cited the first deletion, 1.7.3 was the correct numbering. It is now at 2.6.3: "For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc...." Further deletions, in the event that I make them, will cite the correct number (or I may use the {{schedule}} template). Thank you for pointing out my error. HalJor 01:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I needed some more info to defend my position at WYCD. JPG-GR 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one applaud your efforts on the radio articles. I've been removing station schedules and whatnot from these articles whenever I run across them. These things are clutter, completely irrelevant, and can easily be found on the stations' websites. I notice these things are often added by people working at the stations themselves. The most ridiculous one I saw was for WXSS, which had a complete listing of text messaging numbers for all the jocks at the station. Ugh! I got rid of that immediately. Has no business on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work, and I tip a glass to thee. --Fightingirish 00:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The few histories that I looked at indicated the schedules had been there for some time, so I never bothered to look for who/when (and I wouldn't be surprised if many of them are out-of-date). I'm glad to clean up at least a little bit and have a reasonable policy to back me up. One of these days, I hope to find a policy on notability and verifiability that I can use to clean up Trivia sections that insist on including things like "In one episode of The Simpsons..." and "This was one of the answers on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?". HalJor 04:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your hard work with cleaning up vandalism, and beating me to revert vandalism on 111, I award you the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar! ~ Wikihermit 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I was about to clean up some vandalism on the Sadomasochism page and found that you fixed it as I was looking at it. You definitely deserve this barnstar, keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.112.55 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit of KSLZ Wiki

May I ask why you edited so much from the KSLZ entry? Please explain to me how the version that you edited is any different from any other radio station entry. I included all of the current staff (commonly done in many radio station entries) and most of the former staff (done in several entries that I've seen). KSLZ is one of the more influential Top 40 radio stations in this country and deserves to have as much information as possible listed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.97.45.186 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

The following comment was another editor's response, copied from User talk:67.97.45.186:

...The original editor was correct: Wikipedia is not a directory, or an arbitrary collection of information. I did read your reasoning on the other editor's page, and I'm afraid that if other articles on radio stations are like this, then they're still wrong. Other crap exists (yes, that's the title of the policy, I'm afraid) is not a valid argument to contest deletion.

I'll add that the station's alleged influence is not noted in the article, and "as much information as possible" is welcome, provided it complies with WP policies. If "other crap exists", it's mainly because no one has cleaned up the other articles yet. I can only edit one (or at most a small batch) at a time. HalJor 23:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing DJs

The DJ list is important to what the XM channels are. They are not there for the sake of being there, they are part of the channel's identity. Flap Jackson 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIR: "Wikipedia articles are not...Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. I don't think any of the articles I touched gave any indication that DJs are notable or significant, and the same "part of the channel's identity" could be made about any station. I consider such DJ information to be unencyclopedic unless they are notable or some appropriate comment is made in the article. HalJor 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, they may be unimportant. However, from the point of view of the listener, they are important and are not see as the same a DJs seen on a terrestrial station. In addition, it is know to many listeners and subscribers that the XM radio website is notorious in keeping track of a schedule thus these pages keep a more accurate timetable. Thus, by common sense and information existing and potential people what is going on. TravKoolBreeze 22:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then, in keeping with WP policies, mention of the DJ should be included but the schedule (unless significant in itself) should not be included. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a TV Guide. External links to the programming schedule would be welcome, but the listings do not belong here -- it's not maintainable, likely nor notable. HalJor 05:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Which I just mention, is significant for the fact that XM website itself can not maintain the listing. It is notable to those who listen and those are potential subscribers plus, any pending merger with Sirius. I understand there is a limit to how much should be listed; however, an encyclopedia is to give helpful information and until XM keeps an updated schedule, a minor listing on Wikepida will not destroy the website or hinder its help to users. TravKoolBreeze 16:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(sorry to but in, but...) Just because XM can't maintain their own website doesn't mean it's WP's responsibility to do it for them. JPG-GR 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WEXP (La Salle University) Edit

You deleted the Executive Board listing under WP:NOT-DIR, but it wasn't listing a directory so much as it was listing our governing board. Our governing board is not "loosely associated" but rather "significantly contributed to the list topic" because they are the governing board. They are not "genealogical entries or phonebook entries," nor are a list of their names parts of "directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or resources for conducting business." Note the entry here: Y-Rock_On_XPN for a list of DJs and staff. I see no difference between here or there. I've reverted the entry. If you still think having it is justified, I'd be happy to take the matter to an admin. No hard feelings and certainly no mean motives, just questioning a call is all. Pacdude 08:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think having the Board listing is justified. Just because phone numbers aren't included doesn't mean that it fails the spirit of the "directory" policy. Furthermore, see WP:OtherCrapExists. HalJor 14:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

As you were the first I saw to cite WP:NOT#DIR to remove promotional schedule listings from radio articles, I was wondering if you'd like to comment here regarding my interpretation of WP:NOT#STATS to remove excessive ratings histories for radio stations. Thanks for your time! JPG-GR 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It may not be what you wanted to hear, but I threw in my 2¢. HalJor 03:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism

See my reply here: [1] --TotesBoats 06:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your Talk page. HalJor 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

BDSM

I see from your last couple of edits that it appears you don't approve of psychological analysis of BDSM, am I right? If so, you are off-base for Wikipedia - this is an encyclopedia, not a pro-BDSM blog. Just in case that's your view. LiberalViews 15:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What I disapprove of is the use of Wikipedia to make misleading statements, such as that "the general view of psychologists is that sexual masochism falls under...psychiatric sexual disorders", when the article you cite says nothing of the kind. Rather, the article explains that there is "no universally accepted theory explaining the root of sexual masochism" and, in a perhaps vain attempt to give some response to those concerned about the topic, continues with "some theories attempt to explain the presence of sexual paraphilias in general." There is no connection explicitly stated -- only what you inferred. Yes, this is an encyclopedia -- it's not an anti-BDSM blog, either. Just in case that's your view. HalJor 17:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, hope the revision I did meets the problem you've defined. LiberalViews 17:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BoundAndGagged106.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BoundAndGagged106.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. HalJor 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

BDSM

• Hi HalJor, please have a look at Talk:BDSM#abbreviation, initialism or acronym?. I'm no native speaker so you guys should discuss it. ;-) Kind Regards.--Nemissimo (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hello HalJor, the article is constantly developing further. Since my amount of English language literature is limited and further sources are asked for during the copy editing, it would be great if you could have a look if you can provide any additional reference. Any bit helps! ;-) Regards.--Nemissimo 12:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Move from "Male Prostitution" to "Gigolo"

As I've noted at Talk:Gigolo, I don't support the move you did this morning. I understand your reasoning that the original title was "sexist", but you chose a specifically heterosexual term (I listed five citations). I believe the considerable male-male interaction warrants a more neutral term, if any such move is necessary (and I'm not convinced that it is). HalJor (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps this should be an article on the slang term, street hustler, since that is the gist of the article? - Davodd (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's not the gist of the article. There's an entire section on Venues: streets, bars, print, online, bathhouses, and brothels. And to make things more complex, each venue seems to have its own term for the prostitute. If there's no generic alternative, the original title "male prostitution" is most appropriate. HalJor (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Prostitution of males hits multiple WP goals - doesn't begin with an adjective, is generic enough to robust/inclusive needs, and it's non-culturally sexist to boot. (Also fits within the naming scheme of other prostitution articles - i.e. Prostitution of children.) I don't think there should be problems with "male prostitution" used in body text, though. - Davodd (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Prostitution_of_males#Propose_move_to_Male_prostitution

Hi could you do a favor and make clear with "Support", "Oppose" or something else on this proposal so we might gauge consensus more readily? Banjeboi 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD

The "bio" speedy tag that you placed on a newly created page, Royal docks secondary school, states that schools do not fit the criteria for that particular tag. While I agree completely on the article being deleted, it should be for the right reason. Consider the "nonsense" tag for a situation like this. Thanks! Mazeau (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I considered it closer to "group" (subset of "bio"), but that does make sense here. So noted. HalJor (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Jamal15

It is only needed to advise an editor once that "their" article has been templated. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If only Twinkle did that automatically. Should I edit his talk page every time I have to re-csd? HalJor (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If they remove the notice, revert their edit and then place the appropriate warning on their talkpage. In this instance, it is some kid trying to get their name on WP... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Some tools just aren't as helpful as I'd like. More work for me, thanks a lot, Mr. Vandal. (That's Jamal, not you.) HalJor (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Richard feynman's last doctoral student

You seem to have removed R P Feynman's last PhD student, Thomas Curtright, a Professor of theoretical physics, more or less in good standing, indeed, eminent, as of this month. He is attested in Wikipedia, in Academic genealogy of theoretical physicists , in Stanford-spires Hepnames: [ http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hepnames/www?rawcmd=find+name+curtright ] and in his publically available PhD thesis [2]. I happened to have been Feynman's teaching assistant, and known the man--he certainly appears to be genuine. What could be the point of your deletion?

Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, your addition does not appear to be notable. At least, there is no Wikipedia article for him, and the addition was not cited. "Added last PhD student" merely looks like someone adding himself to the list. HalJor (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would merely deceive by appearance, but I did my part in this. I need not play games to also Look clean and not that person's sock puppet, if that is the disturbing implication of your remark, as parsed in good faith. I very much fear it is now up to you to both write an article for him and to check facts, using the citations in this talk snippet. It is my very strong impression he is the only one of Feynman's PhD students who is pursuing physics theory research at present, of the type that Feynman pursued. This terminates my involvement on this article and leaves you with a serious burden, I fear. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• comment. I think for doctoral students the practice is we only include those with a WP article, but I am subject to correction here. A notable person normally has many students, some of whom turn out much less notable than he. The documentation for Curtwright is reliable enough, though, if we do usually add them all. And if he is notable, an article can be written. DGG (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is new to me. However, I'm not patrolling Special:Newpages -- I'm hitting Special:RecentChanges, so the "patrolled" link is not visible to me. Thanks for the info, though. HalJor (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. We really have to get that part fixed. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Legion Cat

Thank you for your recent efforts to improve the pages of some of the members of the Legion of Super-Heroes. However, I have removed your addition of the Legion category from the pages for Tellus, Quislet and Gates. Per prior consensus at WP:COMICS, individual members of Super-hero teams are listified, not categorized. Please see the relevant section of the Wikiproject: Comics Editorial Guidelines for clarification. Of course, consensus can change, so if you disagree with this action, I suggest you bring the matter up at the Wikiproject: Comics talk page so the entire community can weigh in. Thanks, and have a good day. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry about that, I kind of figured it out after I made those three edits. I was surprised that the category did not include the actual members -- the category description is merely "Articles relating to the Legion of Super-Heroes." and says nothing about excluding the characters. HalJor (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've added a link in the cat description to the relevant section of the Wikiproject: Comics Editorial Guidelines, which explains the guidelines in much greater detail, including the reasons behind the prior consensus. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Smartstim

Smartstim is a community page, it is not commercial or spam.

I suggest you read it first.

Trigger happy mods give wiki a bad name

BTW most of the content on this wiki page comes from Smartstim(!) 88.110.149.253 (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:ELNO, particularly points 6 and 10 as I noted? I suggest you read those before you post the link again. I'll make it easy for you:

6) "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." I did visit the site but I couldn't read anything without registering. And the site is not *the* subject of the article -- the site is *about* the subject of the article.

10) "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." The site is a discussion forum.

Even if most of the content on this wiki page did come from SmartStim, only registered users would be able to verify that and it is still not a reliable source. HalJor (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The site is categorised under WP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO#Official_links and therefore should not be removed. WP:ELNO is not applicable and is being used by this mod inappropriately. 95.149.232.170 (talk) 10:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's Talk page at Talk:Erotic electrostimulation - I have replied there. (By the way, I'm not a "mod", and we should always assume good faith and not start throwing around accusations of improper conduct just because we might disagree on content -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Er no - read the comment! - Boing is the only one "throwing around accusations". Very defensive and revealing , Boing! 95.149.232.170 (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What have I accused anyone of? -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

would you please be so kind to acknowledge my answer to you on the talkpage of the article? thanks. 95.222.175.61 (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at Talk:Erotic electrostimulation#Smartstim. HalJor (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are not mandatory

A reminder that guidelines are not mandatory, so if another editor disputes an edit you've made in accordance with a guidelines, you should not edit war over it, but should discuss the edit on the article's talk page. Thanks, BMK (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I Love to Singa

Not going to engage in an editing war, and will leave it be...but I wholehearedly disagree with your assesment that what you deleted is "just trivia." The very idea that a cartoon from the 30s is being referenced in that matter in the 21st century makes the importance of those appearances self-evident; the appearances speak for themselves. 161.113.11.16 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Just no. For example, South Park could reference any cartoon from any time period. Why did they choose that one? I have no idea. Did it contribute to or drive the plot in any way? That scene in South Park was funny for its pure absurdity, but if you hadn't seen this cartoon or heard that song before, you would have gained nothing from having seen just that reference. Items like those I deleted belong, if anywhere, on a list of cultural references in that episode to explain that subject matter. On this page, it adds no significant value. In this article, knowing that South Park referenced it doesn't make me want to learn more about South Park. In a South Park article, it would make me want to learn more about this cartoon. See WP:IPCEXAMPLES and answer the four questions at the end. HalJor (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Still disagree completely, but like I said, I will let it go. Final point is that someone who remembers that cartoon fondly (a LOT of people) would be very interested to know about the South Park reference, and oftentimes would have no way of otherwise knowing about it. Contrary to your assertion, it very likely would make want a lot of people to learn about South park, or at least that specific episode. And, Matt and Trey have specifically spoken at detail about I Love To Singa and WHY they used it. I'd try and re-write the section if I didn't expect you to delete it. Take care. 161.113.20.135 (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a suitable/reliable reference (see WP:RS) for why Matt and Trey included it, by all means add it -- that's what Popular Culture sections are supposed to be for. I highly doubt that people would want to know about the South Park reference without that kind of information -- the reference is so fleeting and doesn't contribute anything to the plot or characters (my "lack of context" assertion), so to the uninformed viewer it's just a throwaway joke. "...it would make a lot of people want to learn about South Park"? It's been on for ~20 years. Who *doesn't* know about South Park? They reference everything. Give them a reason to want to learn why this cartoon was referenced. That would add the kind of significance we need here. HalJor (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

BATMAN THEME

REVERTED. To last edit do to colloquial usage of " buhnuhnuhna song" in reference to Batman theme name.. Reasoning: Same line of thought as a " star trek starship" being called a Spaceship.

IT IS WHAT IT IS! King nerd cir. 1892

Iamiyouareyou (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

And "what it is" is neither "colloquially 'buhnuhnuhna song'" nor "Joke a cover of the song used in Toilet humor". Neither assertion is sourced; the second doesn't make any sense. HalJor (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Okidoki, The joke is "what did batman say when using the bathroom bununununu batman" okidoki. yep better leave this one neutral ta ta Iamiyouareyou (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Check the addition to batman theme!

refrain form deletion discussion started on talk page.

p.s sorry that the above is not in an official template. My template knowledge is limited.

Iamiyouareyou (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"On earth what is Obvious to most is almost always not Obvious to some." Captain Oblivious circa.1692 Iamiyouareyou (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

bunnnannnananana batman.. Marvels better anyway Iamiyouareyou (talk)

BARN STAR

		The Recent Changes Barnstar
		You have been awarded this Barn Star: For your contributions, such as the fix of "bunuhnuhnuhnuhnuhnuh BATMAN!" Iamiyouareyou (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Iamiyouareyou (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Batman Theme

Vandal2: Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Batman_Theme. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iamiyouareyou (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Batman Theme, you may be blocked from editing.

Dude. You gave me a Barnstar for reverting your edits, then accuse me of vandalism while you go back and made more bad edits to the same page? One of those edits broke the grammatical structure of the opening sentence (your own User page claims you're a native, professional-level English speaker, and this isn't the first grammatical error you've introduced), and your other edit inserted obvious, uncited WP:OR). I don't get it. HalJor (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Shield (Archie Comics)

An edit-warring editor has reverted your edit at Shield (Archie Comics) and I thought you should be made aware. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I admit the Mighty Crusaders site looks better than most fansites, and I'll defer to the consensus. The discussion is interesting. The site came to my attention from one of the Archie character pages -- its link to MC was dead, and it didn't appear that the site is being maintained properly, and it certainly looked like self-promotion. But I'll keep watching to see how this comes out. HalJor (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And with that (I learned a few things), I restored the links on the other Mighty Crusader character pages, following your format. HalJor (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Notification

I opened a thread at WP:ANI where you are mentioned. I'm not complaining about you, but you are mentioned, so this is just to notify you. Herostratus (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, what a can of worms I opened. Thanks for the notice (WP alerted me as well, the little bell in the menu bar at top). HalJor (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:QuantumLeap10Cover.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:QuantumLeap10Cover.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

I did not know the second batman theme discussion was finished. I did not know adding Bunnunununu batman could anger someone so much. I have no understanding of people who like comic books. I'm sorry if I ever offended thee! I did not mean to cause a disruption. As for the random act of vandalism to the church page: this is a share address and one day I forgot to log out! Iamiyouareyou (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Cock ring edits

Hello HalJor, Thank you for doing the corrections to my efforts. I put in Penis Ring as a category on the page as it came up as a category when I loaded up an image into wiki media. I would like to revised the Cock Ring page, but fear conflicts of opinion. As a newly, now do and where do I post up a revision for comment before publication? The reason why I think the page needs an edit are that some sections are poorly written and others repeat a lot that is written in other sections. One thing I did not understand was why some images I had linked to the page were removed. They were images I had taken yet they were stripped out. Would it have been to do with the captions I had put on them? Any advice great fully received.86.133.193.173 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The Talk page is a good place to solicit opinions and discuss edits with other editors who are watching the page. One of the tenets of Wikipedia is to be bold -- go ahead and made and edit. Other editors may respond, some more politely or professionally than others, but we're more likely to take some action in response to an edit than a comment, especially if the comment is along the lines of "can/should I do this?" (see: be bold).

The "Penis Rings" category probably exists only in WikiCommons, which is where the images reside. There is no such category here in the encyclopedia section -- it would probably consist only of the Cock Ring page and a couple of others. As for the removed images, I can't really answer that. Some images tend to be removed if they essentially duplicate others on the page, do not add to the value of the page, are of poor quality, or violate any of the rules for adding images (such as copyright violations or without free/fair use). I doubt images would be removed solely because of the captions. If the images are valuable, proper captions can be written. HalJor (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information. I'll give the bold approach a go.86.133.193.173 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand

I do not understand your message to me. Please explain. --ClickingChains (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You were warned once about the content you added to Legcuffs. You added it again. I repeated the warning but was too lazy to use the template with the next-higher warning text. HalJor (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

How do you mean by 'it'? Added 'it'? Added what? I added converse encyclopedic materials. --ClickingChains (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

And you did so without citations, as noted in the warnings you received. Please review Wikipedia policies, as linked in the warning notifications. HalJor (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I will take this matter up with Gumbo Wales. --ClickingChains (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Lazy-restless

Hey, HalJor. Just letting you know that Lazy-restless (recently seen in the Anal sex article history) is Sharif Uddin. I don't think you are aware of who this editor is, but his talk page reveals some of his problematic editing. He is one of our more problematic editors, on both religious and sexual topics. He, for example, will add a bunch of text that shouldn't be added, copyright issues, engage in WP:Synthesis and WP:Citation overkill. Some wording he chooses to use can also be quite awkward. So examining edits he makes when one sees him at an article, such as at the Anal sex article, is a good thing. I appreciate that you are one of the editors watching that article. Adrian J. Hunter has already been made aware of Lazy-restless.

It's best that I don't ping Lazy-restless to your talk page since this post is not a positive post about him and I don't want to encourage him to try to prove me wrong, as it's felt to me he's tried to do before.

It's suspicious that he showed up after edits by প্রলয়স্রোত; they might be related. And, yes, I remember that what প্রলয়স্রোত removed to be supported by the references. I'll check on the white blood cells thing at a later date.

Thanks for your help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm curious if you've reported these accounts for investigation as sock puppets, per WP:SPI. From the outside, it can be hard to prove but it sounds like you have some pointer-evidence to make a case. HalJor (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

If you mean Lazy-restless and Sharif Uddin, Sharif Uddin simply renamed his account. If you mean Lazy-restless and প্রলয়স্রোত, I'm not sold on them being the same person. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Report moved to WP:ANI

Hi HalJor,

thank you for the report. To allow discussion, I have moved it to WP:ANI#Enix150 reported by HalJor.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Glassdoor

I see that awhile back (like 2014 especially) you were involved in editing at Glassdoor. I was wondering if you could take a look the Criticism section and talk page to help weigh in. The page doesn't seem to have active users, so I'm reaching out to some people who have edited it in the past to see if they can help examine the situation. Thanks! only (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Shock value

Why did you revert my edit? Please, read MOS:SHOCKVALUE and MOS:LEADIMAGE guidelines. Your reversion goes against Wikipedia guidelines. gabibb2 ^✉ 19:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to the TALK page, like others have asked you to? HalJor (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Because he is the one who is not following Wikipedia's guidelines, not me. There was no "conflict of opinions" to justify going to talk page, there was a person following the guidelines and another person not following the guidelines.

Let's use some common sense here. There's no reason to revert my edit unless you're putting your personal preferences above Wikipedia's guidelines.

Both images have the exact same message, the only difference is the nudity. He is not respecting MOS:LEADIMAGE guidelines. gabibb2 ^✉ 21:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It has been explained to me more than once that the Guidelines are just that: Guidelines, not Rules. There can be exceptions. But this isn't for me to decide. For the fourth time (at least), take it to the articles' Talk pages, and remember WP:NOTCENSORED. HalJor (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia is not censored. But unfortunately you did not follow the guidelines. Please, read the guidelines before doing something like that again, thanks. gabibb2 ^✉ 22:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Images with copyright violation

Hi. Images given on this page [3] seem to have been uploaded from www.reflectivedesire.com without any permission. I do not know how to nominate these images for deletion (on grounds of copyright violation). Can you please do it? 2405:201:6007:4A4A:F564:94F9:89F4:C1A1 (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would but the site itself says "All still images are in the public domain." here (at the very bottom) and I don't see any Terms on their site to suggest otherwise. If the images are found to be under copyright somewhere else, we could pursue that. HalJor (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

deleted pic

Hi, i hope this is the right place for conversation. Can you explain, why you delete the pic i added on glossary of BDSM? You rate it as not helpful, but also invoke that it was already removed previously. The main reason why it was removed previously was because of the violation of the user name by the poster, but there wasn't objective reasons against the pic on the page. Do you have objective reasons why the pic isn't helpful? LittleBigfeet (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That the editor who posted it originally had a username violation is immaterial to whether the image should remain -- that is an entirely separate issue. But if you read their Talk page you'll see the specific Wikipedia policies justifying its removal from the article. In any case, the point is moot as the image has been removed from Wikipedia Commons for the same reason. HalJor (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Birmingham Jail

Perhaps we could have compromised on 'reconstruction' – or at least on hyphenating 're-creation.' – Sca (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not take this to the article's Talk page to gain consensus, rather than asking only me? I think the original phrasing was perfectly fine. HalJor (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Even though recreation was ambiguous in meaning. Anyhow, MLK Day is past, so it's moot. -- Sca (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

But it's not ambiguous in this context. That's the point, and there's no reason to change it. HalJor (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. 'Bye. -- Sca (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

More than a Fan Page... Legitimate Domains with Dedicated URLs for TV Series vs. Fansite Distinction on Wikipedia's "External Links" Subheading

HalJor, You did it again! I am writing to address a concern regarding removal of a longtime link and the classification of legitimate domains with dedicated URLs focused on a particular study (In this case, a long-standing TV series within Wikipedia's "External Links" subheading). While I understand the need to differentiate between reliable resources and fansites, I believe we should reconsider dismissing the legitimacy of these domains, which have been providing valuable content since 1996.

Among the numerated examples of what may and may not be an external link.. I find non of them to match what dedicated non-profit site established for analysis and critique as anything but essential to a given topic in the wikipedia hierachy.

The proposed domain differ from typical fansites due to their unique focus and comprehensive content. They feature episode guides and frequently asked questions (FAQ) sections, offering essential resources for those seeking in-depth information about the TV series. These elements underscore the sites' commitment to accuracy, depth, and scholarly analysis, rather than mere fan enthusiasm.

Furthermore, the domains' impressive three-decade existence attests to their credibility and longstanding reputation within the TV series community. Such longevity is rare among standard fansites, which often come and go with changing trends and personal interests.

I'd like to emphasize that Wikipedia's "External Links" section aims to provide readers with supplementary resources that enhance the main article's content. Disregarding the legitimacy of these domains could inadvertently restrict readers from accessing reliable information capable of countering inaccuracies from sources like IMDb.com or anonymous contributors. Dedicated domains, especially those committed to preserving the series' original context, play a crucial role in rectifying accumulated misinformation.

For instance, consider tribute pages dedicated to series like "Quincy" and others predating perpetuated myths and inaccuracies. These pages are vital in upholding accurate information related to the series, including characters, plots, and original network broadcasting details. This becomes particularly significant when later studio packaging introduces misinformation, such as the erroneous claim that "Quincy" ran for 8 seasons when, in reality, it concluded after 7 seasons. This fact can be corroborated through multiple sources, including TV Guide descriptions and statements by Jack Klugman, the lead actor, during interviews conducted at the series' conclusion.

Incorporating such tribute pages as legitimate resources in our "External Links" section actively preserves historical accuracy and helps readers access information aligning more closely with the series' original context. This enhances Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable source of information and empowers readers to form well-informed interpretations of the series' history.

It's important to note that designating something as "WP:fansite" without clear explanation is unwarranted and doesn't do justice to Wikipedia or the many members who rely on the site as an external resource link.

Considering these points, I propose a cautious approach to including these domains rather than outright dismissal. We might establish specific criteria to assess their legitimacy, evaluating content depth, years of active existence, and community reputation.

As Wikipedia adapts within the changing internet landscape, let's ensure its commitment to providing reliable and valuable information remains steadfast. By discerning the difference between dedicated domains focused on scholarly content and standard fansites, we uphold the utility and informative nature of our "External Links" section. 173.62.35.247 (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of words, when "I didn't read point #11" would have sufficed. HalJor (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)