User talk:Hulcys930/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hulcys930! I am RP459 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

-- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hangon tags

To contest against the suggested deletion of those pages you need to comment on the discussion pages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth Dreams, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cruiser Dreams and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Dancer, hangon tags are for speedy deletion only--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

"I have opened a dispute resolution page regarding Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback where your conduct has been mentioned. You can find the page here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though consensus was reached and implemented on this issue within a few days, and the dispute resolution was closed, on August 22, Wolfowitz rewrote the entire GITO page to represent the reality he wishes had occurred because the consensus reached was "unacceptable" to him. I must not understand the concept of "consensus."

I DO finally understand that opposing Wolfowitz is a completely futile gesture, as is obvious from perusing his personal Talk page. Over and over the same problem: when opposed, he becomes more entrenched in his position and gradually loses the ability to discuss the issue cogently or rationally, resorting to whatever insults he can think of, while complaining to other editors that he's being picked on and how Wikipedia policies are more important than truth. This is no different from identical disputes on a wide-ranging series of subjects that Wolfowitz has been involved in over the years. By tacitly condoning this behavior, I see no indication that Wickipedia cares whether it represents accurate information or not. I DO, however, know when I am playing on an uneven field and this pretty well defines that concept. I am content to let Mr. Wolfowitz continue to imagine he is manipulating reality to his liking, and exercise what little power he has as a WP editor, rather than waste my time trying to make a silk purse. Wikipedia is the real loser of this argument. Hulcys930 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)"

Hulcys, using Wikipedia talk pages as a soapbox, as you've done here, at other user's talk pages, and at the AN/I thread, is not acceptable. The attacks you have levied against Hullaballoo, likewise, are not acceptable. You will stop these things. Consider this a final warning on the matter. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the SPI Investigation was a "cease and desist" order, even though I didn't know about the investigation. Yes, I will stop "these things." I will no longer participate in a no-win debate. I made the mistake of lowering myself to someone else's level. It just really isn't that important. Hulcys930 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Gilgamesh in the Outback DRN thread

Hi Hulcys930, this is Mr. Stradivarius from the dispute resolution noticeboard. About this post that you made earlier today - that particular discussion has already been closed, so I'm afraid not many people are likely to look at it. I haven't checked into the discussion much, but I gather that there are issues involving a thread involving the Gilgamesh in the Outback article at the administrators noticeboard for incidents that are related to why it was closed. If you would like the thread to be reopened I suggest asking TransporterMan, the user who closed it. However, I think the best option may be simply to make a post on the article's talk page instead. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Overt COI

Since you're functioning as a publicist for Perseid Publishing, to say nothing of being published by it, you have no business trying to scrub Wikipedia articles clean of verifiable facts which happen to contradict the publisher's current spin. And your rationale for removing the publishing history for "Gilgamesh in the Outback" is palpably false, since the Hugo Award site lists the Asimov's appearance as the original publication, and more important, the records of the US Copyright Office, cited in the article on the story itself, confirm the publishing history. I don't know why your little coven is obsessed with falsifying the history of the story, but the recent effort to smear the reputation of the late Brian Thomsen as part of this is squalid and disgusting, and you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

cite, please on her job as publicist. Provide statement from Perseid's website or promo material. Edited to add: I knew Brian Thomsen. Brian Thomsen was a friend of mine, and you sir, are no Brian Thomsen.108.86.132.22 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.perseidpublishing.com/blog/?author=2 Any other questions, mr or ms IP who appears to believe it's OK to defame the dead and defenseless, but not to disapprove of such defamation? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not my fault that Wikipee can't maintain login information. This is who I am. "Muse" != "publicist." She serves as an archivist for one particular project only, unpaid. Learn to read, learn to be polite to your betters, and seek some therapy, fanboi.Mzmadmike (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You first. 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(Yes, that's a snarky way of suggesting that one not lead with one's chin, and it's shamelessly stolen from a probably apocryphal story about Billy Wilder). I think it's pretty clear that someone who makes statements on a publicist's official blog like "We will continue publishing more anthologies and novels as we move forward and we appreciate your interest. Thank you again and welcome to Perseid Publishing" can fairly be described as "functioning as a publicist," not an "archivist." (HW)

I wasn't aware I had been given a job as publicist for the publishing company. You might try actually looking at the source quoted - The Hugo Awards official website where it shows that Robert Silverberg won the Hugo for the Novella GITO published in Rebels in Hell (that's on the 1987 Hugo Awards page on their site). So are you saying The Hugo Awards official website is incorrect? The only thing deeply "squalid and disgusting" is your refusal to accept reality and continued attempts to drag Mr. Silverberg into a dispute that was settled 25 years ago to which you had no access and certainly no genuine knowledge. Mr. Silverberg says he wrote GITO for Rebels in Hell as well as writing the two other stories appearing in the Heroes in Hell series, then combined them into a novel AFTER SCRUBBING ALL REFERENCES TO THE HEROES IN HELL Milieu so there would be no copyright problems. Had they been written independently, as you continue to assert, there would have been nothing to remove before being combined into a novel. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? A "publicist's official blog" would not be a standard, "anybody can post here" type blog on a publisher's website. It would probably have some sort of title, oh, say "Official Blog of the Publicist for Perseid Publishing" which, of course, it does not. I suppose you have never heard of a generic "Welcome, we hope you keep visiting us" blog post... look around, you'll find lots of them if you aren't busy attacking someone else's character in order to deflect attention from the fact that your arguments and sources are not valid.Hulcys930 (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, The very first post on the blog states "Welcome to Perseid Pythia, the blog of Perseid Publishing." The blog doesn't have any mechanism allowing "anybody" to post. I'd be very surprised if you can find an example of an actual publisher's blog that does. And why do you say things like "We will continue publishing more anthologies and novels as we move forward" if you're not speaking on behalf of the publisher, or didn't want people to think you were? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal assumptions, I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed in any capacity by Perseid Publishing. If you had paid attention to the format of the blog, you would have seen a balloon in the upper right corner of each post saying "Comment" allowing "anybody" to post whatever they like. As has been disclosed previously, I have had one short story published in Lawyers in Hell (published by Perseid Publishing). I have been a fan of the Heroes in Hell series and The Sacred Band for many years, as are a number of other people who enjoy interacting as a group with shared interests. It is rather interesting that you find the time to do so much "off-Wiki" investigating of the individuals who disagree with your position when you consistently aver that any discussion "off-Wiki" is suspicious and should not take place.

Regardless, none of the above excuses you for personally attacking me, using demeaning and uncivil language, and attempting to denigrate and intimidate me because I have found valid sources that support the reality that you choose to ignore, in favor of your personal delusions. Neither I nor anyone else who has even the most tenuous connection with Perseid Publishing has in any way attempted to "smear the reputation of Brian Thomsen" or defame his reputation, and accusing us of doing so is just one more attempt to draw attention away from sources that do not agree with your position. Either that or you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

You might consider keeping to the subject of the sources at issue rather than sinking to name-calling and personal invective and attempting to change the subject of the Heroes in Hell dialog in order to obfuscate the issue when you have no way to refute information in perfectly legitimate sources. Once again, I will ask you: "Do you believe the Hugo Awards Official Website contains inaccurate information?" They are, after all, the organization that makes the decisions regarding who wins the awards and one would think they would have reasonably correct records regarding every award given out and which version of the story or novel won the award. From now on, I would appreciate you sticking to the actual issues of "verifiable" sources and leaving the nasty verbiage for other venues. Hulcys930 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Hugo Award site is indeed generally reliable, and satisfies WP:RS. However, your claim that it contradicts the existing article text regarding Gilgamesh in the Outback is plainly false. It lists the story's publication in Asimov's SF Magazine as its first/original publication. The US Copyright Office records show the Asimov's publication occurred first. The Thomsen anthology copyright attributions list the Asimov's publication as first. The highly reliable Gale reference Concise Major 21st-Century Writers lists Asimov's as the first/original publication. No contrary reliable sources have been provided, only a single post from a Locus-hosted blog that without doubt misstates the publication history of a related story.

That said, the Hugo site is not primarily a bibliographic site, an may be expected to include the occasional error. For example, the 1987 page lists the Baen Books edition of Shaw's Ragged Astronauts as being issued in 1986. I believe the correct date for that US edition is 1987.

And, of couse, you're being deceptively misdirecting with regard to the publishing blog; whiler anyone may comment on a blog post, only users authorized by/affilated way with owner may post directly. It's astonishing that you would think users here wouldn't know the difference. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I copied the following from HW's personal talk page since he now is altering what other people are posting.

           02:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I, personally, deeply apologize for any unkind language or accusations I have made against you, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and promise never to engage in such language in the future. (Really, I don't practice witchcraft.) It would be good if you could look at information, furnished by the editors whom you feel have been persecuting you, with a fresh eye, without hearing a sneering or condescending tone in what is being said, even though I know you really feel justified in completely dismissing everything said by people whom you consider to be "single purpose editors" -- although I don't really understand why you assume those editors would automatically have nefarious intentions since they are obviously only interested in something about which they feel deeply... I will also see if it is possible to furnish you with some information you would consider truthful. Would a scan of the rights (permissions) page of every Heroes in Hell book help? Maybe there would be a way I could post the jpegs of each page somewhere you could access them. I'd probably have to get permission from an administrator or something, but it still might be possible. Please let me know. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

THE ABOVE COMMENT WAS MADE ONE WEEK AGO AND RECEIVED NO RESPONSE; THERE ALSO WAS NO CHANGE IN THE "TONE" OF THE EDITING COMMENTARY. I REMOVED THE APOLOGY SINCE IT HAD OBVIOUSLY DONE NO GOOD.Hulcys930 (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

In looking so hard for "evidence" of "promotional editing" and parsing every single statement made trying to find inconsistencies on which to pounce, you are missing the point entirely: the WP pages need to reflect reality accurately. That is all anyone wants, no matter how hard you try to convince other editors and administrators that every change made to any of the related pages is an attempt to use WP for promotional purposes. It would be really nice if you could just move on and become obsessed with something else. The pages now all reflect a neutral, chronological publishing history, regardless of who suggested it or who agreed or disagreed with the wording. Please leave it the way Lifebaka suggested it be worded.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.31.106 (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 

October 2011

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Gilgamesh in the Outback, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note the edit history is NOT from Gilgamesh in the Outback - it is from The Sacred Band of Stepsons page which has been unmolested since Spring of 2010.Hulcys930 (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

A hostile editor (User:Hullabaloo Wolfowitz) has decided to radically edit another Janet Morris page, since we just went through 3 months of arguments regarding Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Mr. Wolfowitz was finally forced to stop making changes and edit warring over that page and is now attemption to ruin a different page that has been unmolested since spring 2010. Please help me get this stopped. The page was beautifully done and this editor is removing book covers, deleting major parts of text (all with the excuse that everything is promotional).

This is the edit history for the last couple of hours of editing by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz of The Sacred Band of Stepsons page. This page has stood unmolested since the Spring of 2010 and now Mr. Wolfowitz is trying to dismantle it since he was overruled in vandalizing the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. Is there some speedy process to have him blocked from vandalizing any more of Ms. Morris' pages?Hulcys930 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: dubious, subjective, inadequately sourced) (undo)

  1. (cur | prev) 20:32, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (15,861 bytes) (→History, myth, and philosophy meet fantasy: or/subjective/synthesis, unsourced) (undo)
  2. (cur | prev) 20:31, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (16,353 bytes) (→The ancient viewpoint: OR/subjective/synthesis, unsourced) (undo)
  3. (cur | prev) 20:30, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,325 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: ce) (undo)
  4. (cur | prev) 20:29, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,452 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: fix typo) (undo)
  5. (cur | prev) 20:01, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,453 bytes) (→Reception: add review) (undo)
  6. (cur | prev) 19:56, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (17,190 bytes) (→Lovers and brothers and friends: pair-bonded characters driving the fiction: more obviously promotional text) (undo)
  7. (cur | prev) 19:55, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (18,383 bytes) (nfcc violation, multiple nonfree images without image-relevant discussion in text) (undo)
  8. (cur | prev) 19:52, 17 October 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (18,461 bytes) (→Evolution of the fictional Sacred Band of Stepsons: wretchedly excessive promotional text) (undo)
  9. (cur | prev) 14:46, 17 October 2011‎ Orangemike (talk | contribs)‎ (20,081 bytes) (it's a copyright violation; we don't continue a copyright violation while some nebulous process is taking place) (undo)
 10. (cur | prev) 22:22, 16 October 2011‎ Marcus Qwertyus (talk | contribs)‎ (20,174 bytes) (Let this go through the process first.) (undo)

Please see if there is an emergency procedure to stop this vandalism as soon as possible.Hulcys930 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at what HW did to the article in question. It's definitely not "vandalism". It's a content dispute. He has pruned and trimmed the article. Some of his edits are debatable, but on the whole I find his modifications to the article to be acceptable. I know this isn't what you were hoping to be told, but it's the truth. DS (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a civil and considered answer. If you look at the bottom two threads on my talk page, you will see how other editors responded. I guess that an older, long-established editor has the right to call me anything he wants to, but I must respond with humility and agree with everything he has said (really, I'm not a practicing witch). There is so much invective from HW directed at me and several other editors on Talk Pages, both personal and page, I'm actually shocked that they think his behavior is all right...Hulcys930 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

Hello,

I have reviewed the edits made by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz that you brought up on User talk:Drmies. They do not appear to be vandalism, which has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia. I've commented in more detail on User talk:Drmies. Please do not make unjustified accusations of vandalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you start reading some Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please see the above linked for starters. Also you should be aware of WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:BOOMERANG. Elizium23 (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS and WP:FORUMSHOP also comes to mind based on what you did to admin talk pages. Elizium23 (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to agree with Cullen328 and the other editors above. This appears to be a concerted cleanup effort on the article, involving the removal of possible copyright violations and other dubious and unsourced material. As such, this is not vandalism by any stretch of the definition. If you have issues with his edits, then you need to take it up with him or discuss them on Talk:The Sacred Band of Stepsons. You are not going to get anywhere trying to canvass everyone else with your frivolous accusations. –MuZemike 21:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I do beg your pardon. I was not aware that such radical edits within a very short period of time would not be considered vandalism, especially when there had no major edits in approximately one and one-half years. Exactly what procedure does WP consider "appropriate" in an instance where there is a heated history of edit-warring involving an editor who then begins to edit another unrelated page about another series by the same author? Please note that I do not have 7 years of experience and 43,000 edits under my belt and I will need some help to file a dispute properly. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is not "edits you disagree with". Other people are allowed to edit articles, as well; just because it hasn't been edited in a while doesn't mean it is complete and not editable by anyone else. –MuZemike 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me the correct definition of "vandalism" from WP's rules.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And I'm also sorry I did not know that asking for help from more experienced users was "canvassing" or "forum shopping" since I was not aware those rules existed. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• Well, how, as a self-proclaimed new editor, did you find your way to me and my talk page? Odd. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Because I saw your user name where you made an edit on the Heroes in Hell page and clicked on it.Hulcys930 (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)