User talk:FreeRangeFrog

Deletion of "Seth Yudof" page

Hello,

I hope your weekend has treated you well. I'm writing as I've noticed that one of the pages I've helped write and maintain (along with a collection of others) the last few months has been deleted as it was considered an advertisement. The page in question is "Seth Yudof" - which was written using no biased third party sources and tried to be unbiased. I understand that it was deleted on April 5th and am hoping (since I'm still learning Wikipedia) that rather than deletion, I might be able to edit and remedy any and all issues with the page rather than writing a new one from scratch. Please let me know if this is at all possible or if a review board would be recommended. Again, I hope your weekend has treated you well and don't mean to be a bother. Thanks!

-jojohot1- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.252.235 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You can request undeletion here, although it's very unlikely that your request will be granted given the blatant advertisement-like content in the article. Please log in (I assume you have an account) and declare your conflict of interest if any, because I get antsy when someone says they are "maintaining" pages like these. We'll go forward from there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignazio Ciufolini misconducts

Dear FreeRangeFrog, please permit me to not agree with your actions about censoring the misconudct by Ignazio Ciufolini. What was missing at the time of the early discussion in the Talk page is now present. I cannot realize how you can act so. Thank you. Rambilon (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not, not in my opinion. But I posted a comment to the article's talk page, where I recommend you should be seeking consensus about this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

How can you deny the reality? There are independent, third-parties sources from all over the world in different languages by different non-anonymous authors (apart from Neuroskeptic, but it is in a reliable and reputable source such as Discover (magazine). And there is a Letter to the Editor in a peer-reviewed journal like Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology! You cannot abus of your position in such a way! And if you look carefully the editing history of Ignazio Ciufolini you will se that there several one-purpose authors devoted entirely to him! Rambilon (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

See WP:BLP/N#Ignazio Ciufolini. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dean Radin

I was reading over the talk page discussion and it seemed very familiar to me. Back in October or November, I tried to work on a compromise between editors on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. I eventually saw the effort was futile and ever since I've been labeled a "fringe-pusher" even though I've never edited a single article in the pseudoscience area, I just made what I thought were conciliatory remarks on a talk page. Some of the editor who are skeptics are quite knowledgeable about the topics but BLP concerns take a much lower priority to labeling different people as pseudoscientists (or, as some would say, quacks). There doesn't seem to be a middle ground, there is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. I guess I'm just commiserating with you and I'm glad one other person is aware of the polarizing nature of editing in this field. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: Thank you for the commiseration, I appreciate it I think yes, there is a definite siege mentality here, perhaps caused by repeated attempts at sanitizing these articles by their subjects or adherents. But I think we need to be better than that. And the instant lack of good faith when an established editor with no edits to those topics tries to fix one is definitely demoralizing. But quite honestly I'm not sure how to fix the problem. Either we dispense with the concept of consensus (which would be terrible) or just friggin' delete them all en masse (which would be terrible as well). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, recently, there has been a battle of the cases (at AN, AN/I and ARE) where editors from either side try to get the other side sanctioned. So, there are fewer skeptics right now than there were in March, some have moved on to editing in other areas. I think the regulars at those noticeboards are getting tired of seeing this in-fighting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I saw the whole Sheldrake drama develop in ANI because it's in my watchlist. Should have known better before I went and edited Radin's bio :( §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the situation will get worse if impartial editors stay away from contested articles. I should give it another shot, maybe in a less controversial area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Why delete me?

Why delete Double G (rapper)I've spent a good amount of time creating that page and for you to just delete its hurts me especially since that's me and i was creating it to help get my name pout when people look me up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.138.213 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to "help get your name out", subjects must meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. And in the case of your article, there wasn't even a minimal assertion of importance. You'll also want to read this and this. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleted Customer Engagement Management page

Can you please publish the Customer Engagement Management page without the reference links? Otherwise, the term itself is not defined on Wikipedia.

Mike.Cichon (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that was hopelessly promotional. Quote: big data analytics to help organizations gain a holistic view of how effectively an organization is engaging and a broader perspective, these solutions help organizations take a more strategic approach to effects of customer and employee engagement etc. Wikipedia articles are not collections of buzzwords. And with your comment in the talk page you actually provided the argument against keeping the page to begin with, had it not been promotional - that there are very few sources available for the concept. Wikipedia cannot be used to promote or expand topics or concepts, the inclusion guidelines require that we use reliable secondary sources to document our articles. If those sources don't exist then the topic should not exist here. In other words, we document notability, not help create it. Having said that, if you feel you can get that going from a sourcing perspective, you're welcome to use WP:AFC to work on the article and have someone else review it before it goes "live". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Republishing article

Hello friend I want to inform you that Anamika Mishra is a very well known author from India and request you to edit her article and republish it. Thanks 203.88.6.44 (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you're asking me, I never deleted that article. But the fact that it's been deleted and recreated and now protected from creation should tell you that it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you feel the subject meets the notability guidelines for inclusion then I'd recommend using Articles for Creation instead so that other editors can evaluate it before it is promoted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

I wonder if you can tell me why you did this? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: There was an OTRS request around this (with other demands), if you have access I can get you the ticket #. Why? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 14:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It's of no importance, I just saw the blanking without any obvious reason, and wondered. Thanks for answering, anyway. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

RJ Preet

Recreated by Use:Devak31 naru - I've deleted it. As I brought the AfD I won't take action on the editor. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Salted it and left a comment on the user's talk. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I meant to reply and say that I hadn't salted it because salting makes it harder to notice a recreation, eg of RJ Preet Atwal - speedy tagged, and another IP comes along to remove the speedy tag twice - a different IP this time. Longer or indefinite block I think. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kidpower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Self Defense (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) 08:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

keltonmorgan edits

Just curious what is considered commentary/personal analysis. Everything I write includes a citation to an outside source - either government agency or major daily newspaper and is 100% absolute fact. And as opposed to editing anonymously, I do so with my real name. Whoever else edits the page does so anonymously and does not cite 99% of the information, much of which is definitely editorial/opinion.

Would appreciate your clarification or specific examples of edits that violate TOS so I can avoid them in the future.

Thank you,

Kelton Morgan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltonmorgan (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Keltonmorgan: You are using primary sources to insert commentary such as claims to be a farmer, but has actually been a lobbyist who represented numerous special interests. and Nearly 70% of Texas Republicans voted against Miller in the first round of the Primary, not to mention He has also been accused of hiring illegal immigrants for projects in Wichita Falls and suffered a gunshot wound under mysterious circumstances in his hometown of Stephenville. which was completely unsourced to begin with. Further, you actually removed sourced information. I don't doubt that as many politicians this person merits some valid criticism, and some of the stories from the Dallas Morning News are OK, assuming they are not introduced with phrases such as Miller is most known for voting in favor of a state income tax which is unsupported by your sources. Material in biographies must be neutral and follow the sources used to the letter. If you feel you can't do that because you have a bias then you shouldn't be editing them at all. I would invite you to read the policy on biographies before you continue. We are not against including criticism of people, but it cannot be done that way. If there is unsourced material you are free to challenge and remove it, or fix it, but these types of edits are inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I have edited the page in a way I believe follows those guidelines. Please review and let me know if there are any problems with any of the edits. Thank you, Kelton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltonmorgan (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I removed the bit about him being a lobbyist - you used a primary source for that which is not acceptable. You need a secondary source that specifically calls him that. Also, now you have issues with weight, so I'd recommend adding some more positive or neutral details. The animal cruelty accusation for example should probably go. See WP:BLPCRIME. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. When I link to the official state record showing his lobbyist registration, that's not a valid source to say he's a registered lobbyist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltonmorgan (talk • contribs) 01:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Did you click on the link in my comment that says "primary source"? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleting Urban Ladder

Hi, the page Urban Ladder was deleted as it was unambiguous advertising claiming the sources were all press releases. However, ALL the sources were NOT press releases and were in fact articles written independently in leading newspapers in India.

Since the company is an upcoming startup in India which has been covered by Indian business newspapers, it is a company that deserves a Wiki page. I request you to undelete the page since it meets Wiki requirements for pages on a company.

Sudhanvaraom (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sudhanvaraom: It doesn't matter what the sources were, the article was deleted because it was written in a non-encyclopedic tone that came across as an advertisement. If you have a conflict of interest and you feel it meets the "Wiki requirements" (which can be found here) then please use WP:AFC to submit it instead of creating it yourself. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I have noticed that you deleted my article about Dora Tokai fashion designer. I really do not understand why, because it contained the necessary citations etc. Could you please tell me why it was not good so I can re-write it. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monaco987 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Monaco987: There was a deletion discussion where there was consensus to delete the article. I only closed the discussion itself. If you feel the deletion was made in error you can open a review here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

• dates
• years
• commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
• common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not Getting Update Notices of Updates

I am following Amazon Eve's page. I am NOT getting notification of updates. I very much want to. As you may recall I was suspended for a while and then reinstated. I am wondering if there is some lingering suspension hanging around. I was reinstated for a bit and then I lost it. Thank you, in advance, for your assistance and for your work on Eve's page. Greenwayfriend (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Greenwayfriend: That would be a technical issue (I guess), have you tried going through HELP:Watchlist? Specifically the "Email notification" section. You might want to try the Help desk as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User attempting to impersonate you

A user, 42.104.2.171 (talk · contribs), recently tried to impersonate you and close an AfD. Just thought you might be interested to know. Rather a pitiful attempt, since they didn't even bother to change the timestamp from the AfD they copied/modified your comment from. G S Palmer (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Update: they may be a sock of TekkenJinKazama. G S Palmer (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@G S Palmer: That's rather bizarre. Not sure if I should laugh or cry :) Thanks for the heads up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed the paragraph I added to the article on Branch Davidians. The article is deficient because it discusses Houteff and does not mention Roden when in reality Roden founded the Branch Davidians, Houteff had nothing to do with it. As far as sources go, I suppose I am the source as I was a Branch Davidian and knew Benjamin Roden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbunds (talk • contribs) 16:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Dbunds: "I suppose I am the source" is the problem, see WP:V. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Nifedipine

Hi I recently made changes to the Nifedipine page regarding Professor Saminderjit Adalat Kular and his contribution to the development of Nifedipine. Can you please explain what was te problem? I cited a article from the respected Neurosurg. Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.95.78 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you can't add material about a living person, phrased like that, to that article. It's offtopic at best, injurious to the person at worst, and any "controversy" must reference multiple secondary reliable sources. What you have there is not that. And it would belong in the "Controversies related to Nifedipine", if we had one. Or in the bio about the scientist, if it existed. If there is indeed some kind of controversy then it needs to be not about a person but about the topic of the article. If you want a second opinion you can ask at the Biography noticeboard. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, however, I cannot find any newspaper article etc. with this information. The information and article was presented during a conference on blood pressure medication in Manchester, UK. Also the inormation is related to the article, it is part of the "History of Nifedipine" and related to the first paragraph of that section. But you are correct I can't find any "secondary source". To rectify this can I put up a modified version of what I added, retracting any names etc.? I am new to wikipedia so I am still learning the rules. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.95.78 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can't find information about it then you should not add it to the article. See WP:V, and more importantly, WP:BLP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Oproiescu Sorin Virgil

Hello FreeRangeFrog. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Oproiescu Sorin Virgil, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Meets WP:NFOOTY as there have been changes in who the subject plays (that is Mosta F.C.) for since the AFD - if you disagree this will need to go to AFD again. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Callanec: Thanks for the heads up, but I didn't place the tag, I just reverted the removal by the creator. The tag was placed originally by User:Biruitorul. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bioregulatory medicine deletion

I would like to ask for your help and opinion about page (Bioregulatory medicine) you recently deleted after discussion. Before being nominated for deletion there was active and constructive ways to reshape the page by multiple editors and text was edited as there was clear path towards consensus. However, one of editor incensed by repeated undo of his comments responded with deletion call, which I think is not the way to handle Wiki articles. However, I am truly saddened by deletion due to denigrating so needed changes in public health, and would be really grateful if you could help and let me know if there is a way you could revert decision to reconstitute the page.

Note: The real problem with Bioregulatory medicine which I tried unsuccessfully to pass to others in discussion during AfD was that SYNTH is misinterpreted with interdisciplinary/system sciences where synthesis is a main scientific platform, particularly when there is medicine that aspire to include empirical and systemic views together. It is therefore a necessity to bring together empirical way of human body as a biochemical machine, together with systemic function based on relations with environment and other functioning physiological systems inter relationships. I can see how it can look like artificial compiling data or manifesto, but it is rather a scientific platform that harness references from both platform. I would be the most grateful for help and guidance, and any way forward if possible; many thanks in advanceBogorodica (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My involvement here is limited to interpreting the AFD discussion and clicking a "delete" button, and I cannot go against what consensus there was there. If you want to take this further you'll have to do it at WP:DRV. I will note that every single argument made by yourself and the people you asked to vote in the AFD boils down to tacitly accepting this concept is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community but it would be really neat if Wikipedia could do you all a favor and accept your article. And that is ultimately the problem - we don't do that. Wikipedia only exposes knowledge that is already established and recognized, using reliable sources to support claims. We don't publish original research or original thought. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reply and appreciate explanation. I have not asked anybody to present their view but merely have been presenting my own, and I do not expect any favours but objectivity, rather then deleting page with credible references.

Should it not be pragmatic choice to leave the page and let it be edited and decided by wider public, rather then allow one or two editors in AfD who used all administrative skill by knowing how Wiki works to have it their way, and push your opinion on their side. Is is not exactly why Wikipedia exist to allow wider community rather then few chosen to make decision on majority behalf? The safety measures to protect objectivity need to be implemented, but not to the extreme nor detriment of the main principle. I will take it to WP:DRV, as I am learning how this process works and am very keen to find out intrinsic nature of Wikipedia, or is it just yet another thin layer of those who holds secret grail of knowledge ...who knows, but it will be very interesting to see response by WP:DRV; take care Bogorodica (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have submitted deletion review as per discussion, but am not sure that it has accepted instruction that can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_3

Could you please do me a favour and let me know if deletion review is submitted properly or I need to try it again, many thanksBogorodica (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Autopatrolled and Rollback

Hi FRF, I see that you still had Autopatrolled and Rollback activated on your account. I deactivated them because they come standard with the Administrator Flag. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to fix a problem with rollback actually, which ended up being a CSS tweak I forgot about rather than permissions... anyway, I should have turned them back off §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Simon Mrsic

How Can You un delete his page?? he is back in USA playing with San Jose earthquakes... from Bosnian first div. side FK Sloga Doboj — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackcat365 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, please open a deletion review here. Just be prepared to make your case about the subject meeting the notability guidelines. Articles deleted after a discussion are not typically not undeleted by request. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No deleting!

Hello, Tony Waag created the page Tony Waag. Tony owns the copyrights to any text on Masters of Tap, which is where there was a copyright infringement found. Mr. Waag submitted this text to them, because he wrote this biography. He has been the Executive/Artistic Director of the American Tap Dance Foundation for 27 years. Please allow this page to be created, as it is original material that Tony owns, and can be used under his name.

Thank you, Tony Waag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Waag (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Owning the copyright does not mean you can simply paste it into Wikipedia. It would need to be donated to Commons under a free license, or placed in the public domain. Most people don't do that since it's just easier to paraphrase what the sources say. Regardless of that, please be aware of our conflict of interest guidelines and our username guidelines. You should abandon or rename your account, and use the Articles for Creation service if you want to re-create it (obviously without a copyright violation). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:DarlingAgency

FYI: User talk:DarlingAgency#Conflict of interest. This one will want watching. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@JohnCD: There was also a complaint to OTRS regarding edits to the article in question, which was partially valid. However the block was only due to the username. In any case, I have it in my watchlist and hopefully they'll appeal the block, change their username and move on. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Omnimaga

I have never requested the undeletion of a page before, but I am now. You deleted Omnimaga for A7, but I believe that the article failed CSD-A7. Please note that I am not the original author. For instance, Omnimaga is a calculator programming community (this may sound silly, but Omnimaga users code serious programs) that has gotten the attention of Texas Instruments. This is because Omnimaga has helped develop a jailbreak for the TI-Nspire, which has resulted in TI actively updating its models to thwart the exploit. Although I am not very familiar with Omnimaga, it passes the GNG. I noticed today that the page was deleted; was it CSD tagged? Could you please explain your thoughts or restore the page? Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

PS: I believe that the talkpage had a discussion explaining its notability and a contested deletion section, with consensus to keep. Piguy101 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It was tagged as A7. And not a single piece of information in the article asserted any kind of importance (the threshold for A7), it merely said the website existed and what it was about. As for the talk page, if there was consensus that it should not be deleted then someone should have added some kind of claim to importance, but obviously no one did. If you want to work on it and you feel it meets WP:WEB then I can userify it if you wish. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. Your points are valid. I guess that I may recreate the article at a later time but indicate its importance. Piguy101 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait there! This page, in its most recent form, did explain significance in terms of projects beneficial to the calculator programming community in general. In addition, Cemetech (A very similar site) has an article, not deleted, that was basically the same, except that the Cemetech article was not explaining the significance of Cemetech as a community, but was almost a blatant advertisement for Christopher Mitchell (aka KermMartian). The Omnimaga, though it was still under construction, concentrated on the broader scope of the entire community at Omnimaga. In the Omnimaga article, there were several projects from different members. In the Cemetech article, all of the projects are Christopher Mitchell's.

That's actually not true (and thanks for dragging me into this argument). Many of those projects were created by a group of members (including myself), and almost all the listed ones have been cited widely on sites like Hackaday, Wired, Ars Technica, Engadget, Gizmodo, and so on. I believe that's the different between a page like Cemetech, which largely cites well-known third-party tech news websites, and User:Piguy101/Omnimaga, which largely cites itself. KermMartian (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

My point: If you delete an article that encompasses a similar and separate, although broader topic than another article, you should delete the other or not delete either. The Omni article should have stayed, and since it isn't staying, take down the Cemetech article as well. In addition, if you are really looking for importance, Reuben Quest, the most well known and game changing TI-BASIC calculator game of its time, is one of the reasons that TI-BASIC was ever taken seriously in the community in the first place. Axe Parser accounts for more than half of today's projects for the TI-83+ series. Ndless accounts for more than half of today's Ti-Nspire projects.pimathbrainiac (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

pimathbrainiac raises a good point. Cemetech and Omnimaga are very similar communities. The layout for the Cemetech article is similar to what Omnimaga was, and even the content is similar, although slightly larger for Cemetech, as the article has had more time to grow. Maybe userifying would be a good idea, as the article could be submitted when we think it is ready. Although I am unfamiliar with AfC (because I have always agreed with the sysops' decisions about deletion before), it could be a possibility as well. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piguy101 and Pimathbrainiac: The article has been restored and moved to User:Piguy101/Omnimaga. Remember that thresholds are different: A7 requires an assertion of importance, which is separate and distinct from notable. There was no assertion of importance in the article (thus the speedy), and there is no assertion of notability either (which could land it in AFD at worst). Also, "but X exists" is is not a valid argument against deletion. In any case, I don't doubt that the web site is notable, but you do have to actually prove it by including coverage from secondary sources. Once you're done editing it, let me know and I'll move it back and restore the talk page as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a good link; it shows why my latter arguments were relatively poor. I will work on the page. Piguy101 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point here now. I'm trying to pull hands together to get the article into ship shape. Pimathbrainiac (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Foodcalc

They seem to be separate now as far as I can tell from their websites, but looking at the history there seems to be some connection, particularly with trademarks. I've commented at the RFD - Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_11#Foodcalc - could that be mentioned at OTRS if has not been already? Peter James (talk)

@Peter James: I've asked the person who wrote to OTRS to comment on your remarks, as soon as I hear back from them I'll make a note of it in the RFC. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Versus You

Hi,

I wanted to ask you if you could help me, to remove the speedy deletion from my article and maybe gave me some tips what i can do better or what i have to change, that my article can stay. Thanks in advance, with friendly greetings. --Irukandji85 (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Irukandji85: It looks like it was copied to the draft namespace, so you can work on it there. Make sure it meets WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

KDnuggets

Hi,

I just wish to inform you that the KDnuggets page I created was not meant for promotion. There are a number of wikipedia articles mentioning KDnuggets and some reliable sources such as Forbes Magazine, Wall Street Journal have also talked about it. If there is some particular section which you think comes under the category of promotion I am happy to edit/delete it but the page would definitely add value to Wikipedia knowledge resource. Is there some way to restore post and rectify parts to get approved?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anmolrajpurohit (talk • contribs) 00:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Anmolrajpurohit: I have no opinion about the notability of the subject. It was deleted because it read like an advertisement. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Recheck

I did this just in case you didn't get it before, check onepiecewikia.com/Hyouzou — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarDustWind24 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@StarDustWind24: The onus is on the editor adding the information, not me. Please see WP:V, WP:CITE and more importantly, WP:RS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Web Science Institute

I don't understand why you deleted Web Science Institute. I've never been in this situation before, and wonder where I can now access the thread that was taking place on the entry's talk page.

If you and Qwertyus still think this entry needed deleting for promotional reasons, I disagree. There was nothing promotional about it whatsoever. The couple of sentences describing the Institute's intent were taken from its website and put in quotes and referenced accordingly. The other reference was an article published by the BBC.

Perhaps you think it too light in content? Well then perhaps, but that's because the Institute is very young. Its mission is critical to the success with which society and the Web adapt together, or perhaps even redefine each other, and I know the Institute's work in this regard will be documented here accordingly, by me at least.

Lastly, for the avoidance of doubt, I have a NPOV / no conflict of interest here.

Thanks in advance for your clarification. --Psheld (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Writing an "article" about an institute that has never produced any scientific results by only repeating the institute's slogans is effectively promotion of that institute (note: effectively, this is not about intention). Putting the slogans in quotes doesn't really help.

You do seem to have a POV issue, though. "Its mission is critical" etc. is yet more slogan talk that doesn't mean anything to WP unless it comes from a reliable source, and you "knowing" that this institute is going to be important is a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps the institute utterly fails in its stated mission, perhaps it changes course and starts studying spider webs because they're much more interesting scientifically. You can't know these things about the future, let alone write WP articles based on presumptions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Having attempted to champion Wikipedia wherever I can, I'm beginning to appreciate people's disenchantment with editing it. The entry for Kim Kardashian can accrue a dozen edits this month uncontested, but apparently an initiative to better understand one of the most important developments in the history of our species cannot be documented, yet.

I'm particularly confused about whether you're contesting the relevance of the Web Science Institute having a Wikipedia entry, or my first drafting of the edit. Please let me know which one concerns you. BTW, a slogan is a short phrase used in advertising with the intent of being memorable. The only slogans I've developed have been for my own consultancy, although they were more accurately described as market positioning as I've never advertised my services, and none of the deleted entry (from what I can remember – how can I see it now?) could be described as a slogan. If you thought anything too enthusiastic, please do tone down my enthusiasm. But don't delete the article.--Psheld (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Psheld: Your argument would be more convincing if this wasn't the first paragraph: brings together world-leading multidisciplinary expertise to tackle the most pressing global challenges facing the World Wide Web and wider society today. It is necessarily interdisciplinary, as much about social and organisational behaviour, as about the underpinning technology and this the second: The Web is changing our society, politics and economy, but we don't yet understand how exactly it has wrought change, nor how it will continue to do so. I'm sure it wasn't what you intended when you came up with that analogy, but the Kim Kardashian article doesn't read like a brochure prepared by her PR folks. We give a lot of leeway to schools and institutions, but articles written as a press release don't fall under that. Moving on past that (which is easily fixable), you should consider that topics must meet the notability guidelines. Given that this institute was just established, it's likely that it has not garnered enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, although I might be wrong. In any case, if you had followed our conflict of interest guidelines and submitted your articles via Articles for Creation, it would have been rejected by the reviewers for reading as an advertisement, lacking sources and a clear assertion of notability (which by the way is not inherited), which would have given you the chance to fix and re-submit without the admittedly annoying experience of having it be flat out deleted. User:Qwertyus tagging of the article was appropriate, as was the deletion. You are welcome to re-create it following our procedures for COI editors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind about the COI, since you claim not to have one. AFC is still probably a good choice. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have little recall now as to the exact content in the article. You seem to be quoting from it here so it must still be viewable some how? How? I will then review the way I presented the information and consider using AFC. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psheld (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I've copied it here: User:Psheld/Web Science Institute. You are welcome to work on it and submit once you're done. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I particularly like the last line of the article you resurrected in that userspace. Well done. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 06:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably one of his friends. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have another go at writing this entry taking the feedback here into account. I'll be adding quotes from the subsequent coverage of the launch event in Computer Weekly. --Psheld (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment refactor

Regarding this. Sorry, but per WP:FORUM and WP:NPA I can remove comments not intended to improve the article. Both comments left, which you erroneously restored, attacked editors. Please reconsider your terrible decision to revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're invoking WP:NPA then you should report them to WP:ANI. If we're talking WP:NOTAFORUM then you should have removed that entire thread. Nothing you removed is any better or worse than the rest of what is there. If there is a pattern of disruptive behavior or whatever then seek resolution. Deleting their contributions (however much you might dislike them) is not the way to go. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to see how you could possibly have read the comments I removed. They were clear personal attacks, one of which was in a thread 11 months old. Maybe I didn't follow the correct procedure (as you perceive it), but restoring those comments is absolutely ridiculous. There's even a template for the notification of the removal of personal attacks, per WP:NPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Scjessey's claims that the left is more open-minded are indeed amusing. The left is certainly not more objective when it comes to discussing political matters and Giving CNN as an example of the mainstream media and advising people to read the reports of MMfA to tell if a source is reliable; that tells me all I want to know about your bias are not personal attacks, and no better or worse than the rest of the discussion on that talk page (where everyone seems to have forgotten WP:AGF). There is no policy or guideline whatsoever under which you could possibly claim the right to remove them. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I opened a discussion up at WP:ANI about this issue, and it seems not everyone agrees with your interpretation. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

List of photo-sharing websites

Hi FreeRangeFrog,

I do understand Wikipedia's neutral policy, and think it's a good one. I was probably kind of ticked off when I wrote whatever I did (I believe it had to do with the amount of time before photos are deleted or maybe it was about automatic conversion to JPEG format). I probably wrote it with an inappropriate tone, but I think both things are crucial information for a page like this.

Thanks,

   Thomas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.46.144 (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 

As in most "controversies" surrounding article topics, you must provide substantial secondary sourcing, and yes, maintain neutrality. Also, that information is offtopic at best on that list - if anything it would belong in the article about the service. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Dark complected man AFD close

Hi, I'm sorry that I did not see or comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dark_Complected_Man. Contrary to comments at the AFD, plenty of sources use the phrase related to the JFK assassination. Would you be interested in re-opening the AFD? Thanks! — goethean 14:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Goethean: The AFD ran for the prescribed seven days and there was consensus to delete. As this is essentially a fringe article, I would ask you to list it at WP:DRV to seek consensus for its restoration or the re-opening of the AFD instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Josh Stimpson

He's tried to create Josh Stimpson 3 times, Josh Stimpson (rapper) twice and Josh Stimpson (Rapper) once. This time he's here as User:Famous92. Can you please help me explain to him what he's doing wrong? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 04:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@Origamite: Not sure what else we could possibly tell them, other than maybe try AFC. But the subject is very likely non-notable in any case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How do i make myself notable please i am new to wikipedia, i just want friendly advice on creating my article. Could someone guide me through it or possibly make it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famous92 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If after three different sockpuppet accounts, something like 10 deletions and a rejected AFC draft you haven't rented a clue, then unfortunately I cannot help you. You do not meet the notability guidelines, and you shouldn't be trying to promote yourself here. Try Facebook or a blog. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at Ulemzii's talk page.
Message added 06:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ulemzii (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Mishimoto

Free Range Frog,

The company I work for, Mishimoto, is currently trying to update its Wikipedia page and we were deleted because of A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events) and G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Is there anyway you can give us more information about what criteria we are missing, whether it be sourcing or that the article was not written in an encyclopedic tone. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! 173.49.223.212 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please read WP:CORPN, WP:GNG and WP:COI. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 14:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I quote from the deleted article: From concept through completion, every aspect of the product, even the packaging, is 
designed, tested, and reviewed to make sure it meets the Mishimoto Standard of Excellence. The company’s meticulous process and attention to detail ensure that you receive an exceptional product that arrives in a timely manner. To enhance the customer’s experience, Mishimoto’s online and mobile websites offer user-friendly, specialized search tools to help customers find what you need quickly and easily. Mishimoto’s unparalleled Marketing team focuses on brand awareness and attends trade shows and track events. This kind of sale-brochure/press release material is unacceptable. Further, the article made no assertion of importance whatsoever. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Please review the A7 and G11 criteria of WP:CSD. With all that said, you have a conflict of interest and should not be either editing nor re-creating the article. If you feel the company meets the notability guidelines for inclusion, please submit a new draft to Articles for Creation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion review for Dark Complected Man

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Dark Complected Man. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — goethean 19:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clementi Primary School (2nd nomination)

Hi FRF. Closures as "Redirect" - please remember to complete the closure by carrying out the redirect (this isn't done automatically by the closure script). When creatiing the redirect page, remember also to include the approriate 'R from ...' template, in this case {{R from school}} so that it shows the correct message and populates the cat. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you so much for the heads up. That's what I get for trusting scripts! I've re-created the title with the proper redirect. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW - belated congrats on your RfA. I usually vote on all RfAs but yours took place while I was on a break. You would of course have had my support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Very, very much appreciated :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Aidan O'Keeffe

Why did you delete this page? I would like you to reactivate this page so I can add to it?

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan O'Keeffe. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

TechnoBuffalo

So why'd you delete the article? It wasn't hurting you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardaeus28 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So why'd you delete the article. TehcnoBuffalo Is huge an deserves an appropriate article. You seem to be on a power streak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mardaeus28 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (I'm answering this and the one above it.) It doesn't matter how huge the company is; if it has no good references that show notability, we can't keep it. Please read the general notability guideline. Aidan O'Keeffe was deleted according to procedure; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan O'Keeffe. It is hurting the encyclopedia if it's not notable, since it lessens our reputation if it's wrong, and notability depends partially on reliable sources. TechnoBuffalo's been deleted 5 times, so maybe you should reevaluate your defense. This is not a power trip, it's what FreeRangeFrog's job is. Any more questions? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 16:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mardaeus28: Topics must make a minimal assertion of importance and meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. "It's not hurting anyone" is not a valid argument or a reason we keep stuff around. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of Swiss Company for Underwater Breathing and Activities (S.C.U.B.A. AG)

Dear FreeRangeFrog, it was brought to my attention that the page for Swiss Company for Underwater Breathing and Activities (S.C.U.B.A. AG) was deleted. I feel I must object to that. American organisations offering the exact same services as S.C.U.B.A. do each have their own page. As far as external linking is concerned, the links from S.C.U.B.A. AG have a far higher percentage of external entities than the others do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Association_of_Diving_Instructors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuba_Schools_International Etc. - find links to the others at the bottom of each of these two pages.

I do understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not meant for advertising. I do not understand why American companies are allowed to maintain pages that cover the same content with the same type of reference, while a Swiss company is not allowed. If the decision to delete the S.C.U.B.A. page is justified, then I fail to see justification in allowing the pages of similar companies.

I am hoping on your kind consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScubaJan (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see this and this. More importantly, this, which will give you the information you need to re-create the article if the subject meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ricoins123 page

Hello I note my user page has been deleted, this is not what I wished for I was hoping to simply change the heading for it (e-mail sent to info-en@wikimedia.org on 21/6 at 10.45pm) and have some new text and links, including Wikipedia links, citations, to add to verify the page and make it more usefull for users of Wikipedia.

I look forward to any advice for yourself as to how this can be achieved, many thanks.

Ricoins123 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage was deleted because it was being used contrary to our guidelines on acceptable user for them. If you wish to write an article about yourself, your company or any other topic you are closely associated with, you need to follow these guidelines, including submitting the content to Articles for Creation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of "Spider_Project_(software)"

Dear FreeRangeFrog,

you have deleted my article "Spider_Project_(software)" with the statement "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://ipma.ch/assets/re-perspectives_2013.pdf". I am still learning Wikipedia and I would like to get some help from you here. I must say, that this Unambiguous Copyright Infringement is a bit of surprise for me, since frankly speaking I even did not read this article, when I was creating Spider Project page (so I don't understand, how I can infringed its copyrite). I have put reference it this document to confirm the statement, that Spider Project Team participate in IPMA conferences. Any way I have read the paper now and still don't understand what I have infringed. Your help on how to move forward will be very much appreciated. This is needless to say, that I would like this article to be restored, as there was a lot of hard work in it and with recent changes I think I have really significantly improved it to match Wikipedia requirements. So, this deletion came as a surprise as this must have been a really serious reason to delete the article without even given me a slightest chance to correct it (when article was marked for deletion I contested it on the talk page, but got no feedback).

Ev2geny (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ev2geny: I understand. I hesitated to respond to the deletion tag but copyright infringement is not something we take lightly around here, and there were at least three sources from which you (or someone else) appears to have simply copied and pasted material. The alternative to that would have been a copyright investigation which for all practical purposes would have had the same result (making the article unavailable). Please give me a few days to look closely at the material the article was supposedly infringing and I will let you know if we can restore it and how. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: thanks you for your feedback. Looking forward to hearing from you. Ev2geny (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleted page

Hello dear friend.

I manage a singer Jalen McMillan. I have created a page for him, however you have deleted it. Please, explain why it was deleted, and how we can earn Jalen McMillan a page on Wikipedia.

Your response is much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekHoytink (talk • contribs) 03:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I deleted that page, but the fact that your draft here has been declined three times is a good indication that you should not have created it as an article. Subjects must meet the notability guidelines, and you need to read this if you haven't already. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Jamie Cashion deleted

Good day. I had made some edits to a page for martial arts master Jamie Cashion. I just noticed that the page has been deleted for reason of promotion or advertising. I don't remember specifically any advertising in the article and the supporting citations show that for years Mr. Cashion has given martial arts lessons for free, he is heavily involved in charity work, and it does not appear that he sells anything. If you could please give your thoughts on how this article could be repaired and brought up to standards. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dataslurp (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dataslurp: You misunderstand what WP:CSD#G11 means: Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. This article was written in such a way, unfortunately. It was also created by a now-banned user who admitted to being a paid PR person. And as the extent of your edits to Wikipedia are limited to editing that article and my talk page, I must assume you are either related to the subject or to the blocked creator, which makes it unlikely that the material will be restored. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The Lipscomb article

Just FYI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care about Melissa Rauch, but

I have no idea how I got roped into this discussion about her husband's name. I should know better, but since I'm in:

After a few years of stand-up comedy, plus pop culture talking-head work on VH1’s “Best Week Ever,” Rauch and her longtime writing partner — her then-boyfriend, now-husband Winston Beigel, whom she met and began collaborating with in college...

Rauch and her husband, Winston Beigel, wrote the comedy, said Steve Campanella of Belltower Productions, a Cleveland-based production company working with Precious Metals, the major company behind “The Bronze.”

It seems to me that if you're going to assert that Winston Biegel changed his name, which is unusual, it will take more than just the name "Winston Rauch" to convince people. I can't find a single reference which indicates that he changed his name, either professionally, such as through a union or guild, or legally, by going to court, obtaining permission, and having the change advertised.

If you haven't already done so, you might also want to take a look at the talk page for the Melissa Rauch article, where the name of her husband has been a topic of recent discussion.

Billmckern (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@Billmckern: Just out of sheer curiosity, what would you consider acceptable evidence of the name change? For her to announce it publicly, which would be rather silly? Or would you like some legal documents? And if you do, would you take my word for them if they're sent to OTRS? Or would you require for them to be publicly available? Perhaps more importantly, why is it so important what the husband's last name is? I mean, other than to him, obviously. I'm just trying to understand why it's so difficult to see sources from 2014 that call him Winston Rauch rather than Beigel and somehow not think "hmm, maybe he did legally change his name to Rauch". Can you explain please, before I take this further? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@SummerPhD: Might also be interested in this given their comments on the talk page. I suppose that's where this should be discussed, but whatever. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just one man's opinion, but I have to think that a reference such as a newspaper which contains a different name, but no explanation for the change isn't really reliable, especially for two people who are notable. Because performers and writers for stage, film and TV have their work tracked and credited by their names, I'd think that changing the name, especially in an unusual instance like a husband appearing to have his wife's last name, ought to be explicitly noted somewhere.

But like I said, that's just one man's opinion. I'm disinclined to be pulled further and further into this briar patch. I'm not going to engage on this topic any more.

Billmckern (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. But then why would he go to the trouble of writing to OTRS about it? And I agree it's not common, and he did note that in his email of course. But if there are sources from this year that use the "new" name then it's hardly a leap of faith to assume that the man changed his name. The point is not that it used to be Beigel, but that it not longer is. If we have recent sources that reflect that then we should reflect it too. On the other hand I have no idea how to make a note of that (née??) or if we should at all. But I do agree it's not something that happens often. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder how anyone will verify this in a few years. Noting an OTRS in an edit summary and giving a sigh as an edit summary are all just fine for communicating with an editor or two at one particular moment in time. One says, "Hey, I have a source that in some unknown way explains why this documented info is wrong." They other says, "Geeze, what more do you want. I'm changing it back without explaining." As for the article itself, we have two Ohio newspapers agreeing and . . . I guess we're assuming that no one will ever bother to check anything, find a different answer and change it to match other plainly reliable sources. At the very lease, I'd think something one the article's talk page would be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A belated Thank You!

Hi FreeRangeFrog. I was about to do some archiving of my talk page and discovered your barnstar for Robert Bonfiglio, which had got lost in the melee. Thank you so much! You're very kind. All the best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)