User talk:FreeRangeFrog

Typosphere

Guten Abend.

Ich bin aufgrund Ihrer rücksichtslosen Löschungen meiner Beiträge verständlicherweise verärgert. Mein Ansinnen war es keinesfalls, gültige Links und Texttteile zu entfernen, sondern die Artikel flüssiger, angenehmer zu lesen, zu machen. Eine Unmenge an kontextlosen Links stört dabei, so meine Ansicht. Auch die minutiösen Details im Type-In-Artikel, die das allererste Type-In beschreiben sollen, gehören meiner Meinung nach **nicht** in diese Enzyklpädie, sondern in das Blog, welches in der alten Version des Artikel schamlos beworben und verlinkt wurde. Anstelle solcher einseitiger Stellungnahmen habe ich in meiner Version generell die Typosphere.net-Seite verlinkt, welche innerhalb dieser Szene ganz klar als etabliert und führend bezeichnet werden kann. Wieso diese nicht verlinkt werden darf/soll, während ****typer masslos als Quelle genutzt wurde, ist mir unklar. Auch die Löschung des Typosphere-Artikels halt ich keinesfalls für gerechtfertigt. Die Typospähre ist keinesfalls eine unbedeutende Gruppierung, wie in meinem Artikel erwähnt, umfasst sie mehrere hundert Mitglieder und wurde bereits in diversen Massenmedien (Zeitungen (u.a. NY Times, Tages-Anzeiger), Radio, grosse Weblogs) in die Berichterstattung miteinbezogen.

Mfg --User:Skyriter 22:17, 24. Jan 2013 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you are disappointed that your article was deleted, however I did not "recklessly" delete it, I nominated it for deletion because I felt that the group simply isn't notable. I took into account the sources you provided in the original version, as well as my own investigation. As far as I can see the notability of the group itself (as loosely as it is considered a group) and the concept in general are simply not notable. As for the reversal of your additions to other articles, as you can understand, if the concept itself is not notable then the addition of the information is hardly valid. And in fact, in one case (the Type-in article), you actually massaged the information to make it better adapt to your concept, essentially changing the general meaning of the article. As you can imagine that's not acceptable from a content perspective, especially without first seeking consensus from other editors. And finally, please communicate in English when you post to talk pages, since this is after all the English Wikipedia. Cheers. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SPI case(s)

I filed an SPI over the same editors as you before I noticed you'd filed one...mine is located at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Title hero. I didn't add Sweetrascal123 to mine because of this edit...not only did it revert Title hero, but it also came only two minutes after the edit by TH. I'd be fine with you adding Sweetrascal123 to my SPI if you'd like; I requested checkuser in mine. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. If you look at this diff (which was actually his first edit), it's the exact same removal of information. I picked that account because he was already blocked. I'll add a note to my SPI noting yours, and I'll add him to yours just in case. Either way :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

About: Elisa Rego

Hello, how are you?. Thank you for contacting me. I will make corrections to the article about the Brazilian singer Elisa Rego. / I want to ask you questions: I managed to get the e-mail of Mr. Willie Croes (at MySpace) and I got in touch with him so he sent me, all information about Elisa Rego that he had in his possession (he is husband and musical produccor her) on 03 January 2013 he told me that he and Elisa moved to Miami city.
How do I put that statement about Elisa (she lives in Miami) that if I found out of Willie Croes's mouth?, I have no way to place a reference to this.
The e-mail of Mr. Willie Croes is: If you want {blanked email address} check this that I am saying that they live in Miami city.
When I had done changes to Elisa Rego article, I'll notify to you to that you you review the article again and give me your opinion and corrections. Thank you!. m3c4n0 17:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally we discourage disclosing information about people from people who are close to them. While there is a way to contact and file information with the Foundation, that is best used for other purposes. I would recommend finding a secondary source that mentions the fact(s) you want to include, and using that. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP and WP:CITE as well. If you need further help, let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Page curation

Hi. Can you please mark the pages (2013 FAM Youth Championship, B.G. Sports Club and 2013 B.G. Sports Club season) as reviewed? Because I don't think it is reviewed yet, though it has been created a long time ago. Thanks ZZ47 (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of them were already done, so I just marked one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Angelo Antonio Toriello's deletion.

Hi. Before to proceed I have the need to share with you that I'm new to Wikipedia and English is not my first language, so I apologize from now onward if I will be inappropriate by addressing you here my thoughts. First of all I'm touched by your welcoming in your talk page by stating "be nice", because the way I met you in the Toriello deletion's talk page, you "appear" to be not so "nice", rather quite prejudiced, as according to me you are not performing as an editor user, but more like a non impartial "inquisitor" by bordering legality with your serious allegations toward someone that you don't know in the real life and just because nothing substantial came up by researching the web about the man. So, as I was saying, if something is not on the web it means that doesn't exist or whatever is there, for you is just "rubbish" and made-up, or it has necessarily be a "massive hoax". Based on which grounds??? Yes I know there are "rubbish" and "scams" around, but it does not mean that has to necessarily always be like this, and just because your web research turned "nothing" or because evaluations have to be based only according your criterion! But I repeat, may be I'm new to Wikipedia, so it is just matter of time for me to get used by understanding how the system works. However, and trying to be short as there would be a lot to say, few users let me notice some incorrect assertions of yours which I would like to highlight and bring to your attention: 1) You said that "I concentrated on his claims of being the at-large Ambassador of Sao Tome and Principe"; actually, you should know that these are not his claims, but in this circumstance, it is me that I'm introducing the man for inclusion in Wikipedia's article as I believe that his life dedicated to certain social causes are worth enough to be published as the press have already given some relevance and tough not available on the net for whatever reasons. Moreover, in view of thousand articles published here and there without any "authentic" consistency bla bla bla, but just favorable circumstances have permitted it. In short! The man doesn't not claim anything, and even the data posted in the net, photos, videos and projects, actually you should know that are done by others, (call them friends, collaborators, "followers" or call them anyway you like), but you should be open to the possibility that someone else has done and not necessarily done by himself. Have you interviewed or have you met the man before launching such allegations, or have you conducted an unbiased and serious investigation before to draw any conclusions, rather to just base them on a web search? I have done for almost 10 years mate, and I have seen the man standing alone to fight priest's pedophilia against church and facing any kind of attacks in return, so you should kindly pay some little more human consideration before someone that you don't really know and before launching such incorrect allegations. 2)At the point were you state " A search for Sao Tome e Principe embaixador itineratnte Toriello returns exactly one hit, a press released by his own purported organization", some users have clicked that link and open a web site wwww.allafrica.com with an article mentioning his name. You should know that this website it is nothing to do with "his own purported organization" as it is an independent African website, therefore before stating it, you should properly investigate about the ownership. 3) If you are not an expert, then you should avoid stating that some flicker pictures of the person are photoshopped. As a serious impartial editor which I'm sure you are, you should be stating it only after an opportune professional investigation and not just based on your personal impression. 4) Final and most serious are your allegations for his diplomatic position and his given honorary position as general of the COSINT, which you should have conducted a serious and scrupulous investigation (as serious journalists do) before launching them. I'm sure you are not interested at all to deepen the story about the man (why should you? after all you are an open source editor like me, but the only difference is that you are an expert editor), but in case yes let me know and I will be glad to share with you my 10 years "journalistic" observation of his activities, and let me make this clear, that all this, it is nothing to do with the deletion case of his article. In fact, if the Toriello's article fails WP.GNG or any other Wikipedia's guide lines, fair enough, but that has not to entitle users to launch unproved allegations or judge someone a scam or a "massive hoax". Kindly advise if any violations has been made by posting this message into your talk space so I will amend it. Regards. DrKlain (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. First off, please don't threaten me with legal blabber, because it gives me heartburn and it fails to advance your cause. Second, I invite you to read through this very carefully. I'll distill it down for you: People with biographies in Wikipedia are considered important and notable by other important and notable people and organizations. It matters little what I think, your article will be kept or deleted solely on the basis of those guidelines. Having said that, this is what you should do:

• Provide proof that he is an ambassador. This in and of itself will make him notable.
• Provide proof that he is notable because of his work as a friar, or monk, or whatever he was.
• Provide proof that he is notable, under our guidelines, for whatever other reason.

If you do any of these things, without using your website as reference, the likelihood that the article will not be deleted will increase dramatically. Until you do that, however, arguing endlessly that you know he is a very important person matters little. We strive for proof, and the verifiability of the sources that provide it. The Wikipedia article deletion process is about finding reasons to keep information, not delete it. It is under that belief - that valuable information should be included and presented to our readers - that I wish you the best of luck. And please, limit your argumentation to the deletion discussion page instead of here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

List of systemically important banks

Within minutes of its creation you posted on List of systemically important banks "cleanup-reorganize|date=January 2013" "unreferenced|date=January 2013"

Perhaps you were hasty? The page is just a listing, and is titled that way. And it has a clear reference back to the main encyclopedia page Systemically important financial institution where sources are cited.

The table is tightly constructed, with ample cross references to Wikipedia links, and so it's hardly "unorganized"?

Need a LOT more specifics to move forward. 01:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjlabs (talk • contribs)

The intro was a little disorganized and there were no references in the article - I see you've fixed them. Oftentimes when we do new page curation we tag pages to make sure they don't get abandoned with issues, thus the timing. But as long as the problems are fixed, all is good. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AN comment

Sorry about not linking you to the category over at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#Possible RevDel candidate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem! The important thing is it got taken care of. Like I said, it was the first time I'd had to get involved in something like that, so I wasn't quite sure what to do :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Artists.
Message added 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Tanaza Article

Hello FreeRangeFrog,

I'd really like to write the Tanaza article. Can you give me a couple of hints and suggestions to write an article that says what Tanaza is without being a promotion/advertising? Also, I'll need to have the article back to avoid starting from skratch. Thanks

Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patro-claus (talk • contribs) 10:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can ask the admin that deleted the article for help in getting a copy of the text, I'm not an admin so I can't help you with that. As to how to write it without being an advertisement, please go through this set of guidelines to determine if your company successfully meets the inclusion guidelines. If it does then you should be able to include enough third-party references that would establish notability. Most companies are simply not notable, and it requires a fair amount of non-trivial press coverage to consider them so. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, ok I am doing a much better job now. Can you check the new article in my sandbox and tell me if it's ok? Thanks

Patro-claus (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not even close to WP:CORP. Trademarks and patents do not confer notability. The award you cite there is something (let's face it) a blogger made up. Product reviews do not confer notability either, unless there's a large number of them, and even then they'd make the product notable, not the company. The only viable claim to notability I see there is ...the first cloud technology that allows to auto-discovery, recognize and manage multi-vendor Wi-Fi Access Points, but that's supported by a reference to the patent application, which is a primary source and therefore not acceptable. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nikki Phoenix article

Hello! I noticed that you had marked the article for deletion but then added that references were added since you looked at it. I assume that more references were needed with regards to her importance, so I added a number of references from mainstream news outlets, like the Las Vegas Sun, Las Vegas Weekly, Haute Living, Contact Music, etc..... as well as Getty Images. It would seem as she was the first ever adult star to be photographed inside the MGM grand at TABU, for appearance on their Billboard ad campaign, as well as their Jumbo-tron on Las Vegas Blvd, as well as her appearance in Mainstream Films and the 'Maury Show' TV show; would meet notability requirements under multiple mainstream appearnces in the paragraph under section 3:

(3.Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.) under the pornographic category.

If there's anything else you can encourage me to add that will assist in making the article more robust please let me know and I will research and add those as well..... thanks!!

Art javier (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Art Javier

Once you start trying to make a bio fit into the alternative criteria you get in trouble, because I tend to interpret those as essentially being the equivalent of WP:GNG. And I think this person is just barely below that. I'm not going to take this to AFD, but I will post it to WP:N/N to see if there is at least minimum consensus that this meets the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll continue to add reference links over the next few days as I want the article to be as robust as possible. Thanks for your help and feedback. Art javier (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)art_javier

Thanks for defending me!

Tokyogirl79 has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		Thank you! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for defending me on the DeadThings AfD. It's just so hard wading through the claims in the article and trying to articulate my argument to this guy. It's not that I think the claim that the book exist isn't true, just everything else in the article. I did go to the Dark Horse forums and so far they're saying that the claims aren't real. I figure that it Whedon's editor knows nothing about it, then that's just as good as hearing it from the man himself. Any good editor is present from the very beginning, from concept to completed project. I'm trying really careful as to how I word my claims in the discussion, but I have to say that I think the guy is either outright lying about the involvement or he's stretching the truth to the breaking point. I have a feeling that if there is any involvement, it's that Riley submitted a proposal to Dark Horse (which anyone can do) and specified that he'd like to work with Whedon. Then he went from that and started making statements that implied that it was official, but are just vague enough to where he could later claim that he didn't actually have anything set in stone. I also have a strong feeling that we're dealing with Riley himself, given the limited scope of the novel and that press releases and various posts just so happen to pop up after people begin to call him on his claims. If any of this does end up becoming true later on or the book becomes notable then heck, I'll write the article myself. I just think it's a little fishy. Anywho, I really want to thank you for defending my editing skills! Sometimes it's just easy to let the naysayers get to you. I don't get them often, but sometimes it can get so frustrating that it gets to you after a while.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. I truly chuckled when I saw his comments. You know, we all strive to be civil and nice around here, because it's important, but if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck and there's nothing wrong with calling it out as a duck. Especially if the owner is vociferous about it being a goose. Don't let this person get to you, and keep up the excellent work. Thank you for the cupcake and the barnstar!! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Mkdw. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Bhulia, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thanks, Mkdw

Polina Such

Thank you for catching this on the BLP page, and for bringing it to an admin's attention. I couldn't believe it had slipped under the radar for so long. Cheers, 99.136.252.89 (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting it. That was a true mess. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

List of Bus Routes in York

Thank You for your contribution to this by adding on the references page

Thanks! AnnexH (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My contribution

Hi

Thanks for your message.

My article is indeed original research /synthesis and therefore can be removed from your site.

Please remove it as soon as possible.

Regards,

Daniel, Dr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbernard2 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I am not sure if the article Fortnox Arena has been reviewed yet. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It shows up as reviewed when I load it, but I don't see the reviewed entry in the log. Looks like a bug with the curation plug-in, maybe. I'll see if I can report it. I did mark one other of your pages as patrolled using the old interface. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the page was marked as patrolled according to the log, but for some reason the page curation toolbar shows it as "reviewed". I suppose that's correct, but I was surprised that there are actually two different logs for this when it should be one. It's confusing. Anyway, I marked it was unreviewed (which generates a message to the page patroller) and re-reviewed it using the curation tool, which then generates the curation log entries. Hmpf. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you!--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

bias?

I see your comments on my talk page. User wdchk writes on that deletion section not to comment about other editors. I agree. You seem to disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I also see that 80% of my edits have nothing to do with the murder so it is a false personal atack and you are threatening me either intentionally or unintentionally

80% of your 27 edits? That's quite a feat, considering four of them are to my talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sadiya siddiqui

Hello FreeRangeFrog. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sadiya siddiqui, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirect has incoming links. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for letting me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vikarna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gandhari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion Cancelled

Hi,

Just wanted to notify you that I cancelled a speedy deletion of the Order of the Sword and Shield article that you added before. I have explained reasons on article talk page. If you still think the article should be deleted I suggest a proposed deletion so that more editors can be involved in discussion.

Thanks,

Josh1024 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, actually I'd like to thank you for doing so. Apparently I googled the wrong thing and placed the tag in error :\ §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

List of Monster Rancher EVO Monsters

If one isn't supposed to mark as reviewed pages that are marked as prodded, you'll have to take that up with the makers of the Page Curation software. It automatically marks pages as reviewed if you prod them or otherwise nominate them for deletion. Bensci54 (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you PRODed with the toolbar. That will do it. I use Twinkle for that, so I never have that issue. Still, if you PROD something please make sure that you just undo your own review. Typically we want any pages up for deletion to be seen by as many eyes as possible, and many people who do page curation tend to filter so they don't see already reviewed pages. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I see you've been on fire in the OTRS queues. Thanks!!! SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Like Thank you!! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm KiraTHO. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Comedown Machine, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thanks, KiraTHO —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at LightGreenApple's talk page.
Message added 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

also see Threshold of originality LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

In Reply to your feedback

Hi Frog, I received your feedback for

The Tyrant (antihero, film franchise and lifestyle brand)

Hello. Can you please go back to this and put some effort into fixing and formatting it correctly? As it stands right now we can't even tell what it is you are writing about. Look for another article that's similar to the topic you're writing about, and use that same structure and style. Once you do, the title will also have to be amended as it is inappropriate. If the article remains in that state it will probably be deleted, or redirected to something else. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The page title was created to go with the other pages as directed:

The Tyrant may refer to:

   The Tyrant (antihero, film franchise and lifestyle brand), The Seven Sins: The Tyrant Ascending 2008 novel by Jon Land
   The Tyrant (novel), 2008 novel by Ryan A. Murray
   The Tyrant (House), episode of U.S. television series House
   The Tyrant (Planet of the Apes), episode of U.S. television series Planet of the Apes

Please help me understand the best next steps.

Thank you,

KMWE (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't really tell what it was you were talking about in the article, but I assume it's a book called "The Seven Sins: The Tyrant Ascending"? If so, that's the title you should have used. And further, there's no shortage of book articles in Wikipedia, you could always find one and use the same structure. Beyond that, "film franchise and lifestyle brand" are inappropriate at best for a title. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

You commented in this 2009 AFD. Could you look at the sources now at User_talk:MBisanz#Maristella_Patuzzi_delated_page_review_request to see if they qualify so he can re-create it or if he should go to DRV? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see the contents of the deleted article, but after going through the links he added and searching on the English, Italian, German/Swiss and Spanish versions of Google, I can't really say that this person meets WP:MUSICBIO. I see a lot of videos, self-generated contact, general overview pages, management company profiles and a few festival/concert pages with local scope where she is noted as having performed. What I don't see are reliable sources in general media (of any country) that could be considered significant coverage. If these are the extent of the sources he'd use to re-create the article, I'd definitely advice against doing so. Those are the first hits in any Google search by her name, rather than the result of research. The only WP:RS source there is the La Repubblica link (the last one), which is nothing more than an announcement about her performance at the San Stefano festival, and that's from 2005 so I figure it's likely that it was used as a reference in the deleted version. But it doesn't do much for notability. You might want to advise him to create the article in the Italian Wikipedia instead (no idea about their standards). But given what I've seen at this point, I don't think it would fly here. As to the DRV - heck, no. If he had good sources I'd just tell him to re-create, but he doesn't. So there's obviously no grounds whatsoever for a DRV. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

OTRS

2013021310006941 has your name on it--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, he created another ticket. Thanks for the heads up! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 02:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 02:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Re-submitting Deleted Post

Hi there,

I saw that you nominated an article we wrote on Spreaker for a speedy deletion. Perhaps i did not follow the guidelines correctly and would like to rectify this.

Is there any way I could have access to that article again and and re-submit it?

Also, why was it considered spam?

Many thanks in advance,

ToniaTonia.Maffeo (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You can ask the admin who deleted the article to give you the copy. I'm not an admin. As to re-submit, please read this before doing so. We consider 'spam' to be articles about companies that have no encyclopedic value whatsoever and only seek to promote the subject. See WP:PROMO #4 and WP:COI as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

FieldTrip

Hi, it is my understanding that non-admin closures should only be done for non-controversial cases (not needing a deletion). "No consensus" is kind of the definition of being no clear-cut case. If you really think that this is a no-consensus, then I suggest that you undo your closure and let an admin do it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing "admin-y" about a no consensus or keep close. The part where an admin is absolutely needed is a delete outcome, or when the outcome is inherently difficult to determine - and it ends up being a delete as well. That was not the case here. What is is it that you feel is controversial about my close, or that an admin would have done differently? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your closure is controversial. I'm just saying that non-admin closures should only be made in clear-cut keep cases. "No-consensus" means that the case is not clear cut. Also, to tell the truth, I found your closing statement more than a bit muddled. If you think that "there is sufficient evidence that the subject is notable and merits inclusion", then you should close "keep". But apparently you also think that "the sources we have ready access to are not helping", which contradicts the foregoing, because if sources are lacking, then a subject is not "notable and merits inclusion". --Randykitty (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's because the arguments were a bit muddled, but we default to keep anyway. It's that lack of clarity about the arguments that made me decide there was no clear consensus, given the two weak keeps (the one clear keep wouldn't be considered because it's WP:NOHARM) vs. the implied delete from the nominator. Thus, lack of consensus. I just don't feel that a 'keep' would have been honest. Although perhaps you are right in that my summary could have been better. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If you really think that the arguments were muddled, you should not have closed. And a closing is supposed to provide some clarity, not continue the muddling. --Randykitty (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in that we definitely disagree. An AFD coming up on the date limit for relisting and clear no consensus is a clear no-consensus close to me. If you feel so strongly about this then ask an admin to re-open and then have them close the discussion with the outcome you feel is appropriate. I understand your argument, but I still feel that no consensus was more appropriate (and more honest) than a keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand my point. Non-admins should only close in cases where there is a clear consensus. "No consensus" means that there is, ummm, no consensus, meaning the absence of "clear consensus", I think. Ergo, you shouldn't have closed. It's not the result that I have a problem with (after all, I !voted "weak keep" myself), it's the form. This was an inappropriate non-admin closure (which is not even indicated in the closing statement) and that on top of that the closing statement was really muddled is very much secondary to that. Anyway, I've already spent too much time on this and it is clear that you are not going to be convinced. Thanks for the time you took to answer me. --Randykitty (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

deletion of spreaker

Hi there,

I saw that you nominated an article we wrote on Spreaker for a speedy deletion. Perhaps i did not follow the guidelines correctly and would like to rectify this.

Is there any way I could have access to that article again and and re-submit it?

Also, why was it considered spam?

Many thanks in advance, Tonia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonia.Maffeo (talk • contribs) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Did you not read my reply to you above? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just got the hang of it! Thanks for the info! Tonia.MaffeoTonia.Maffeo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Māori language - it was my first time performing a WP:NAC, and I very embarrassingly screwed it up. D'oh. Storkk (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I screwed up my first one too :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Trappole

Hello FreeRangeFrog. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Trappole, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: sorry, A9 is only for music, leave it to the PROD. There ain't no such things as "A9 equivalent". There was a discussion at WT:CSD#Expanding A9?, but no agreement. Cheers, JohnCD (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... figured it was worth a try :) Thanks for the heads up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Indented line

Dear FreeRangeFrog : I am the creater of page " Kate Ma" , and I don't understand why you delete my page . All I wrote about Kate Ma ia true and I believe I already attach every referense . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciouhan (talk • contribs) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

XRIZ and oh,,,,

I just deleted that article as an A7/G11 (I could read Spanish) and blocked the account, but you could do all those things yourself. Are you interested in a WP:RFA, for me you are one of the most qualified candidates out there. Secret ^account 03:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. I guess, yeah? As long as I don't have to give up my firstborn :) It would help with some OTRS stuff as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm speaking to a couple of users to see if they could do the main nomination, as my previous nominee RFA was simply a bloodbath, and I was told I may not be the best nominator at the present moment. I'll gladly do a co-nom however. Secret ^account 05:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

RE speedy deletion of Abine

Hey there, froggy:

I saw that you marked the entry for Abine to be deleted because it's "unambiguous advertising or promotion," which I contested and saw that you changed to a redirect to DoNotTrackMe, an Abine product.

I looked over my submission for Abine, and I want to make a case that it's not, in fact, a G11 violation. If I can't convince you, I'd appreciate some feedback on what is violative so that I can address it.

The entry is a recitation of objective, published facts about the company: the fact that it received a certain amount of venture capital funding; the fact that it was founded by 3 people; the fact that it puts out certain products, one of which has an entry provided by someone other than myself; the fact that it was founded in a certain year and in a certain city; and the fact that it bills itself as a consumer privacy company. These are facts: they're not "exclusively promotional," nor are they biased or non-neutral. They happened; they exist; they're part of a neutral understanding of the company. Wikipedia is full of entries about companies, including companies in the same industry as Abine (like Evidon).

Nor is Abine a "very small "garage" or local compan[y]" that wouldn't warrant an entry of its own. One of its products, DoNotTrackMe, has over 1.5 million active daily users and has been downloaded by over 3 million people. The company has received over 500 pieces of original coverage in publications like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, USA Today, and CNET. It received $5 million in venture capital funding from 2 firms that are both relevant enough to have their own Wikipedia entries.

Abine is a company with a significant user base and media presence that warrants objective, non-biased inclusion on Wikipedia. The mere fact that the article is about a company doesn't mean that entry is promotional, even according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

The current redirect from DoNotTrackMe to Abine is better than nothing, but based on the above, I'd appreciate you considering reinstating the entry. If not, please let me know what I can do to fix any specific concerns.

Thanks,

SarahADowney (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You make the case for this becoming a redirect yourself - the company is not notable outside of this single product. Routine facts about a company do not assert notability. Notability is not inherited. G11 is applicable when the subject presents no encyclopedic value whatsoever so the article becomes nothing more than an advertisement, regardless of the language or material used, because it is an article about a company. It could have been tagged with A7 instead (I see you're familiar with this stuff) and it would have been deleted outright. But because there is a single claim to notability (the product), I opted to reverse my own speedy tag and create a redirect. Sometimes it's just too soon and the company just isn't there yet, but maybe in the future it will. The release of a second highly-regarded product would possibly merit upgrading the redirect to a full-fledged article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Ticket with my name on it

Thanks for the note. I've responded. J Milburn (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at Keith Roth's talk page.
Message added 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Keith 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bucky Halker

Thanks for the heads up on the new article. Nice work by the way! My only objection was to the spamming. I had no role in the AfC. I don't know why the proposal was rejected in the first place as there were signs of notability, and AfC should be all about helping noobs get up and productive. The fact that the draft wasn't ready to move into the mainspace shouldn't have been an issue with the right mentor. At any rate, you are a credit to the project. Rklawton (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Quite frankly AFC seems to me some days as more of a blunt vetting filter than a source of assistance for new editors, but that's another issue. And those edits were spam, strictly speaking :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Easy Release (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Android

Twenty Days Without War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aleksey German

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Robert Borgatta.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that wasn't me, but thanks. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Replify Page

Hello,

I sent you an email last week regarding the speedy deletion of the 'Replify' page (see below) and I've not had a response as yet.

Editor's summary: Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Replify. (TW)

Please could you let me know why this page was deleted as there was nothing contained within the information that was any different to any other WO company on Wikipedia.

I spent a lot of time investigating WAN Optimisation and company providers. Replify is the only provider that does not have a wiki so I corrected that discrepancy.

Please can you inform me what information I need to exclude from the article as other companies on Wikipedia have similar information listed?

Kind regards,

Heidi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hnicolls (talk • contribs) 12:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As was made clear in the message you received in your talk page, the article was deleted because it did not make an assertion of importance. You should also go over the notability guidelines for companies. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reviewing my article!

Dave.Achtymichuk (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Like A kitteh! :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Angel gracia

The article Angel gracia has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. - MrX 01:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that was weird. Is this because I had just moved the page? Hmmm. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

simple revert was all that was needed?

So i was under the impression that for defamatory material, one wanted to use some kind of special permissions so that the records of the material did not remain in the WP databases? was i off base there? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but first we delete, and then we can ask for a revdel through WP:RFO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

ah, got it, "revdel" is what i should ask about in the future then. Thanks. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 02:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. Make sure you revert/rollback/delete/edit whatever that is, and then go ask for oversight (or revdel). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Kenny Clutch

Hi FreeRange. If you can, please take a look at Kenny Clutch and see what some editors have done to it since the time you and I chatted about it at the BLP noticeboard. I haven't changed anything back because I'm just too frustrated to deal with it any more. I was hoping you could fix things. This is the version we had after our BLP discussion. Thanks. :) --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I just reverted it and posted a comment on the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You're great, thanks. :) Actually, though, you didn't revert far enough back. User:TheRuner24 also made disruptive edits; he added back content about the suspect, including his name, and removed sources. He was the first one to edit after I had fixed it to the version you ok'd for me. Auric's was the only good edit. Thanks, my friend. I appreciate it. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't catch that. I left the reference in but removed the suspect's name. I hope this AFDs is over soon... :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll get it. He completely removed the Las Vegas Sun cite and screwed up the CNN cite. I feel bad bothering you with this. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, I didn't even think of checking whether the references were OK. Sorry, but it's hard to spend too much energy on something that's likely going to be deleted, beyond making sure there are not BLP violations. But you've done a good job of taking care of that one. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. I appreciate it. And I know you're probably right; that it'll probably be gone soon. I just get frustrated when I see BLP violations and the removal of cites. It's nice to have great editors like you around. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Scott Pompe page

Dear Wiki colleague FreeRangeFrog,

I appreciate your eagerness and diligence in sweeping Wikipedia for sites that you believe should not exist. It appears that some users have made a strong case for keeping the Scott Pompe page open.

Allow me to elaborate. I am personally interested in cataloguing people who run large media companies. Media companies heavily influence culture across the globe. Across Wikipedia I see countless profiles of business executives. I am very interesting in contributing to this already-existing type of Wikipedia page.

Let me share a quote with you.

"Once a year, Hundreds of participants from around the globe, Meet at the central conference of the Wikimedia movement - to create a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." - http://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Registration

Friend, please study the last 5 words of that quote.

Please stop your actions related to deleting the Scott Pompe page.

Thank you for your attention.

Guinnessjerry44 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerry, FreeRange has done nothing wrong, so I'm not sure which "actions" you believe he needs to stop. He properly nominated the article for deletion and it is a consensus that will decide the matter, not FreeRange. For the record, I agree with the nomination because I see nothing in the article that establishes Pompe as notable. If I did, I would gladly say so. What specifically in WP:PEOPLE do you believe makes Pompe notable? If you convince me, I will be happy to change my mind. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate your zeal here, but Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, or a place to document people who fail to meet our criteria for inclusion. You could always create your own website to document the folks who run large media companies. I'm sure someone, somewhere will appreciate it enormously. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi FreeRange. Gellman v. Tribune Company needs to be deleted too. Please see my comments in the Pompe Afd discussion. Regards. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it fails WP:GNG, but that would have to be a separate AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, new AfD. I was hoping you'd create it. It's a perfect time to deal with both of these articles - handle them at the same time - particularly since the same editor created both of them. Thanks. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)