User talk:Hollis Hurlbut

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Paul Simon, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to, but I'm guessing it's the following: "Simon is a supporter of the effective altruism movement, which uses evidence to determine where charitable giving will do the most good. In 2015, he performed a benefit concert for the Fistula Foundation."

I thought effective altruism should go in the lead, but the Fistula Foundation under "Philanthropy", as it is an example of effective altruism. There are many charities Simon has supported, but not all are important enough to be in the lead. His support of effective altruism is worth noting in the lead as it is a philosophy that guides charitable giving, to the Fistula Foundation and other causes.

I'll do a better job of explaining edits. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Paul Simon. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.

Please review MOS:THEBAND - FlightTime (open channel) 14:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of the MoS, and did not deliberately go against it. What are you referring to? Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the Seekers. On the page for Red Rubber Ball, we read "Red Rubber Ball" is a pop song written by Bruce Woodley of The Seekers." Note the capital T. But yes, the convention does seem to be to have "the" uncapitalized, as in "the Band". My bad. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The Joy of Sect is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Bernard Herrmann has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your review. "Lead/ led"; such an obvious blunder! Always useful to get another pair of eyes. I will try to add more links, for example about Ms. Fletcher. Please feel free to suggest improvements. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

asilvering (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't abusing it. I was not trying to create an illusion of support, circumnavigating policies, circumventing a ban, etc. I was not trying to lend credence to arguments made on another account. I have never been charged with vandalism or disruptive editing. (The other day I reverted vandalism to the page for the painter Francis Bacon, for which I was thanked.) I was certainly not impersonating another person with the intent of harassing them. I have been thanked for contributions to pages for, among others, Bach, Beethoven and Bob Dylan.

Honestly, I just wanted a clean start, so I made a new account. It was foolish, but I was not deliberately trying to mislead anyone, to create consensus where it doesn't exist, impersonate anyone, etc. I made a mistake, and won't do it again. Fair?

But you haven't made a clean start. You're still editing on your main account, which I have left unblocked. -- asilvering (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks blocked to me.

Honestly, it was a stupid mistake. But never did I try to create false consensus, engage in strawman arguments, impersonate another user, etc.

I feel I have made valuable edits to Wikipedia, and look forward to doing so in the future. Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hollis Hurlbut (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Foolishly made an alias, was not abusing it

Decline reason:

I suggest you stick to your original account from now on. PhilKnight (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hollis Hurlbut (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, someone might want to update the GA review nominations to the correct user, e.g. John Williams — Jonathanischoice (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The Joy of Sect has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DaniloDaysOfOurLives -- DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)