User talk:FreeRangeFrog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Contents

Apologies on Taburu Tuilagi[edit]

Dear Free Range Frog,

It has come to my attention that my account was hacked and I just realized you were on the end of some nasty abuse. I would like to say that that was not me saying hate and I'm sorry that it came from my account. I am starting a new fresh account and hopefully I will not got hacked again! Is there anything I can do to trace the hackers? Many thanks, omgainsley3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgainsley3 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Last month, you decided a keep on Presumptive Nominee. It is good that you had comments and suggestions rather than a "The result is keep".

Here's my problem. Let me analyze the consensus....

Borock: keep reason is because there are references. No, not a good reason.
says Presumptive Nominee is more than 2 words. No, it's not. It is an adjective, presumptive or presumption, and nominee.

David Gerard: beyond dictionary definition. No, it isn't

JayJasper: per above two. Not a good reason. Used in the media. Also not a good reason, not establishing notability. The word "the" is use but is not an article. The Obama kids are in the media a lot, much more than Presumptive Nominee, but they are not an article.

Above....3 users

Deepavali 2014: definitions article and also no references about the history of the term

Rhodedendron: dictionary definition and gives example. Also says references don't say about the term, just use the word.

me (Dharahara): detailed explanation.

It seems to me that the reasons given for deletion are more sound than keep and that the keep people, with weak reasons, don't outnumber the deletes. Even merge/redirect would be better (and if so, I promise to improve the Candidate article to include mention of the term).

Also, basically, the users voting for delete address the issues raised by the keep voters. However, the keep voters do not address and are unable to address the delete issues because they don't have a leg to stand on.

Thank you in advance for your discussion and not being a dictator or not considering the matter. Dharahara (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is about this article, but you can do one of two things. One, simply redirect and merge. As I said, that was part of the potential consensus. Two, you can take it to WP:DRV and see if someone will agree with you that it should be deleted. In my opinion the material is valuable, although again given the AFD it's not entirely clear that it merits a standalone article. So the best outcome I guess is to simply merge and redirect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration of the matter. I think merge is the way to go for now.
I am a free range human, not a frog. I don't live in a cage unless you consider the planet Earth as one spherical cage. Dharahara (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User who continues to make unreferenced articles after being told not to[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HinataFan928 Check out the number of prods/afds also as well! Wgolf (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Free Range Frog, I requested the undeletion of a page but it was mistake. I won't continue editing that page. My sincere apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michi44 (talkcontribs) 07:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Orbus Software deletion[edit]

Hi there,

Could you clarify why you deleted the Orbus Software page on the A7/no indication of importance basis?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatesyM (talkcontribs) 14:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I left information in your talk page about dealing with a conflict of interest, I suggest you follow it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Help with BLP noticeboard posting[edit]

Per my last comment at Reliable source question, I asked if an experienced editor (would you please help…you welcomed me to Wikipedia) to kindly advise me on the process of posting this citation for review on the BLP Noticeboard. I'm doing my best to understand Wikipedia policy, but there are subtleties and protocol I'm only gleaning from participating in discussions, and making missteps as I go along. This citation is an article about a living person, it does not identify sources, there are no corroborating sources, and there is controversy about the article's reliability. By my read of WP:BLP policy, that falls short of its reliability standards. But, WP:BLP also notes that care should be taken in posting on the BLP Noticeboard, including in some cases not making a public posting at all. I'd like to be respectful of that and also not make missteps on the BLP Noticeboard. I would be grateful if you could help me with some suggestions on how to proceed. Thank you.Starkcasted (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is a BLP issue at all, I think you just exhausted the reliable source angle and now you're trying something else. Attempting to scrub this reference from the article has and will continue to simply call more attention to it. There is no need for "corroborating sources", the article is a source, and the source is reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. There is nothing in that article that rises to the level we would consider to be a BLP issue, and in any case it is not being used to support personal information about your boss/employer but rather a fact about the company. But, you are free to post on BLPN of course, there's nothing particularly complicated or special about it. The recommendation not to post is just related to situations like suppression of inappropriate material that is handled via email instead. A quick perusal of the board at the moment should give you an idea of how it works. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
BLP was brought up by another editor (see below) but a BLP assessment was all I was seeking and that brings this matter to a close. Regarding the rest of your comment:
Moving this article to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was suggested by another editor, not me:
"Could you please start a new discussion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? I think that will be the best place to talk about this issue. – Zntrip 23:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)"
BLP was brought up by another editor, not me (I had no idea there was a BLP policy before then):
"As for BLP, there is an ongoing a discussion on the article talk page and other editors do not appear to agree with you that the material violates policy or is unreliably sourced. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)"
Who then said:
"I haven't taken a look, in detail, at the BLP-related claims, which honestly is something I should do. No recommendation or anything is necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)"
I waited for NorthBySouthBaranof to look at the BLP-related claims, was unsuccessful in reaching NorthBySouthBaranof, and then asked other editors for help. No one responded. I came back to your page because you responded right away when I pointed out a date error in the citation to improve the reference:
"I wanted to point out that if you end up keeping the citation it has a date error. It is dated 2010-8-28. The article was actually published on 2012-8-28. I thought it was a non-controversial undo, so I didn't correct it. Thanks! Starkcasted (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)"
and I hoped you would be responsive (and indeed you were ;) to an issue that an apparently experienced editor, NorthBySouthBaranof, said "should" be reviewed.
And, FYI, that citation was posted 7 months ago. If someone was hired to monitor and remove it, they’ve been sleeping on the job.Starkcasted (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter who thought it was a BLP issue, I still disagree with the characterization that this is anything else other than an attempt to scrub the internet from information your employer dislikes - which inevitably tends to backfire. Had it been an actual BLP issue it would have been removed in about 5 minutes, with or without your involvement. But again, you are free to explore that angle if you wish. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
First, WP:NEWBIE "Assume good faith on the part of newcomers…Give them a chance!". Second, no employer has hired me to edit any Wikipedia articles. Clearly, there's no convincing you of that, and I won't try. But I'm happy to stay clear of any articles where there is any perceived bias, real or imagined. There is plenty to edit.
Despite this inauspicious welcome, I'm not dissuaded and I intend to bring what I can to the community. I have a lot of experience with fact-checking publications under journalistic standards, that I now understand are different (not necessarily better or worse) than Wikipedia standards. I intend to learn Wikipedia standards, and I certainly will make mistakes along the way. Per WP:NEWBIE, with other articles I'd appreciate it if you'd give me a chance to correct the mistakes before ascribing nefarious motives. Thank you. Starkcasted (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Starkcasted: I'm not sure what mistakes you're referring to. My objection here from the start is the fact that your first action on Wikipedia was to try to scrub something off an article that could be construed as a conflict of interest on your part. Whether that's the case or not, the removal of the reference must ultimately be done by consensus, and you are free to post your concerns in the BLP noticeboard as you said you would. I am in no way preventing you from doing so, assuming I even could. But I do disagree that it is a BLP issue. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(Sorry for the delay. Been busy.) The WP:NEWBIE "mistakes" are exactly what you just stated as your "objection": I should have sought consensus prior to making my first edit, and I should have not chosen for a first edit something that would be construed as a conflict of interest under any interpretation. I did not understand the consensus process until I saw it unfold, and I did not think that edit would be construed as a conflict of interest (in a journalistic context, the standard is simply truth, not whose interest the truth serves). Still, I followed what other editors recommended, yourself included, every step of the way, to the best of my understanding of what you meant, switching gears from journalistic guidelines to Wikipedia guidelines (which I am still learning). And, as soon as understood that, under Wikipedia guidelines, this was a controversial and/or potentially conflicted reliable source issue I moved on to other reliable source issues (where I believe I've made some helpful contributions). So, no, I won't be addressing BLP or any other issues regarding the reliability of my fateful "first action". There are tons of other interesting reliable source issues to dig into. I certainly don't want to waste my time investigating the reliability of a source where my comments will be assessed on a presumed bias rather than on their merits. Starkcasted (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Starkcasted: Fair enough. I will say this: Your first edit did not require consensus per se, rather it was the perception that you were doing it under a conflict of interest that triggered all that subsequent semi-drama. If as you say that conflict of interest does not exist then you have my apologies. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do my best to be helpful, and when I make mistakes, to learn from them. Starkcasted (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well another one who is adding unsourced non notable BLPS[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Siddharth_Abrol I think this is a possible sock puppet also. Wgolf (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Another one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RedAiiRese seems to be adding non notable band members with no sources. Wgolf (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User who is only addings BLPs with only transfermark refs[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marsos I keep on sending warnings about it too. Wgolf (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cedric Thompson[edit]

You deleted the wrong Cedric Thompson. The Cedric Thompson in the AFD was already deleted. Cedric Thompson (defensive back) was just moved to avoid unnecessary disambugation. --Yankees10 00:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Cedric Thompson[edit]

Cedric Thompson (defensive back) was a different Cedric Thompson. I moved him to "Cedric Thompson" after the first Cedric Thompson was deleted.Joeykai (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yankees10 and Joeykai: My bad, I swear I thought the AFD script had misfired or something. Restored. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
No big deal. Thanks for fixing it.--Yankees10 01:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Global Asthma Network[edit]

Hi back in december you deleted my page as advertising. It has been extensively re-written and I am re-adding it. If it still doesn't meet the criteria, could you give me more of a hint than G11? Some idea of the offending text would be useful as I am more than happy to make any required changes. Thanks.Eamone (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please make sure you go through WP:AFC to avoid another deletion, that you check WP:ORG to make sure it's even worth submitting, and to make sure a volunteer reviews it beforehand. I find that it's impossible to explain why an article is written like a brochure to people who wrote it like a brochure to begin with because they suffer from the malady of being associated to the subject in the first place. Which is why we require AFC if you have a conflict of interest. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Block notices[edit]

I was going on past experience where IPs and accounts weren't allowed to remove block notices until the block expired; I did not know this changed in the last few months, so thanks for the correction on this. I didn't mean to step on any toes here. Nate (chatter) 18:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mrschimpf: No problem, that has always been a point of confusion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Louise Blouin[edit]

Hi! Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Blouin; it appears to be duplicated at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/_Louise_Blouin (note the leading underscore before her name). I imagine that should go? It's confusing a bot. Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Looks like it was already closed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Intercollegiate Knights[edit]

Thank you for undeleting Draft: Intercollegiate Knights. However after doing some cleanup, I realized the *entire* thing, other than the references (which is one link that no longer exists), is a copy of https://web.archive.org/web/20071009214034/http://www.ik-fraternity.org/history.htm .

What is the proper thing to do? Nuke it again for Copyvio?Naraht (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Naraht: Yep, deleted as straight copyvio. Thanks for letting me know. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
NP. Still want to do the article and will certainly use that for a ref.Naraht (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Since you're an admin can you please G7 Kendry Flores for me.--Yankees10 18:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Yankees10: You mean the redirect? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the re-direct is unnecessary now.--Yankees10 18:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yankees10: Yes check.svg Done §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sawdust Art Festival[edit]

Dear FreeRangeFrog, would you please consider taking out the two warning boxes at the top of the Sawdust Art Festival Wikipedia page? One is a COI tag, the other is an advert tag. In response to these concerns, the creator and main editor of the page (not me) removed two categories and all the text in them, as well as one external link. I will admit that my previously published writing has been used as a reference in this piece. And I did add one of the categories (on Winter Fantasy). But that category has since been removed, and my contributions now are actually very minor, mostly grammatical clean-ups, which appear to be OK according to Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you very much for your consideration. Do let me know if you have any questions. Richiechang2002 (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So only one tag applies then? Please read this. I reverted your removal of the advert one, because the article still reads like a brochure. Which reinforces the idea that you have a conflict of interest - not being able to see such material as promotional is a common symptom of being associated with the subject. The second section is also almost entirely unsourced. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear FreeRangeFrog, I did not remove the advert tag, the creator and main editor of the page did. Richiechang2002 (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And another user who is doing unsourced BLPs[edit]

Found this when I was looking at the cat for BLPs up for deletion-4 one line articles all up for BLP prod by the same guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hkrugby Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

19 Kids and Counting[edit]

Hi FreeRangeFrog, could you keep an eye on the article 19 Kids and Counting? I notice you recently semi-protected Joshua Duggar and this page is experiencing similar issues. Thanks. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@BoboMeowCat: Looked at the arty and doesn't seem like there's a lot of disruption. You think protection would be merited at this time? My concern with the other one were really BLP-related. I do see some issues of weight but that's to be expected due to recentism and should be hashed out via the usual edit mechanism. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Earlier there were IP's editing to sensationalize the molestation and more recently an IP who's trying to delete any mention of it [1], [2]. I'm not sure it's at the level of needing semi-protection yet, but seems like it might be heading there. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
OK that last edit did it. Semi'd for 4 days. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Is this part of the secret perks of admin? Last time I checked that's not your talkpage and not your comments. Being an admin, checkuser, arb etc does not make you special or give you special editing rights. Would you like to revert yourself and let Bbb23 take care of things? It's well within their scope and I dare say ability to handle. They don't need your protections. I'll point out that WP:TPO states "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection". I am objecting. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: As you are well aware, the notification is intended to notify editors who may be unaware of discretionary sanctions that apply to a given topic they are editing. Your position seems to be that you want Bbb23 to be "notified" of something he already knows. Now, when he decides to break 1RR on that article (or whatever the DS is there) you can haul him off to ARBCOM and I'll block him myself. Heck, I already blocked him once. Until then, both the notification and your revert are inappropriate, pointy and objectionable. And no, this has nothing to do with "special" editing rights, because I'm sure if that was the case you'd be complaining at ANI and not to me. In any case, I'm sure he's enjoying his Sunday, so let's wait until he comes back tomorrow and maybe you can warn him again. Maybe twice. Until then, maybe you can grok that a checkuser is perhaps slightly more aware of DS than an SPA with 4 edits who registered yesterday, doesn't need templating, and just leave his talk page alone unless you have an urgent SPI request or something. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No my position is that Bbb23 is a big boy or girl and can handle their own business. That notice was sent by an established editor [[3]] a long term editor. I take it you will not self revert? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
No I will not, and neither will you. However Bosstopher is free to restore the notification if they so wish and disagree with my original revert. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

2 BLP's I'm not sure how reliable these sources are[edit]

Well I deleted the transfermark part but still unsure, here: Cameron Borthwick-Jackson and Joel Castro Pereira. Wgolf (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like PRODs all around? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah someone else put up prods. On another note-someone did remove tons of BLP prods up I put that only had EL's to the IMDB earlier. Wgolf (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:kkawohl[edit]

& ==Transcendology==

I hereby affirm that I, Kurt Kawohl, I represent Transcendology, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Transcendology

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the free license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

KURT KAWOHL Kkawohl (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Kkawohl Creator of Transcendology & Copyright holder 5-26-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkawohl (talkcontribs)

I have no idea why you're posting this here, sorry. If you have a copyright issue on Wikiversity then you need to follow these instructions to donate the material. I can't do that for you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Gwava[edit]

Wondering what can be done to restore this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gwava GWAVA is a legitimate company with recent history that can be added to legitimize the article. And biased language rewritten to meet non-promotional prose standards. 71.93.212.137 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Go here to determine if the subject merits inclusion, then go here to submit a draft. Also read this if it applies to you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

A odd case where technically this article should be considered as a BLP unsourced but...[edit]

James MacDonald (actor)-the article was created in 2007 but as someone else and since is now a BLP unsourced for someone else so not sure if it can even be tagged as such. Wanted to point this out really quick. Wgolf (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is an unsourced BLP, but you can't use BLPPROD because it wasn't created after 2010. I PRODed it normally. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If we go by IMDb he's a character actor with lots of bit parts, but I can't find a single source other than IMDb... weird. If that's the case then I don't think he meets GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

and another user adding tons of unsourced BLP's[edit]

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Poojanair_82nov Wgolf (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy Abeille[edit]

Not dealing with this reductio ad absurdum. Take it to WP:BLP/N or WP:DRN if you feel the trinity making an appearance in that article is so important. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Before you removed all this referenced info, did you not read the articles in French about the Trinity? Furthermore, why did you remove the context (that it was Mitterand's request, that Roland de Villepin is Dominique de Villepin's cousin)? The references also call him "Monsieur 3%", but you removed it.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I did, I just don't see the point in including that given it's a stub. You wrote They decided upon 3% because it reminded them of the trinity, the Christian doctrine which assumes that the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit are "one God in three persons. and you should have stopped at "trinity" because that's where the source stops, and it actually reads it was reminiscent of the Trinity. See WP:OR. You should also have made it clear it was a quote, and you didn't. Unless you add substantially more material the "Mr. 3%" and expansive explanations about the trinity are just not appropriate. They make the article look like it's intended to be humorous. Go ahead and actually expand the biography and then include that trivia to reduce its weight. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not trivial to know that they came up with this rule because of the Christian doctrine of the trinity. Please don't remove referenced info just because you don't like it!Zigzig20s (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It is trivia compared to the rest of the material that you could have sourced from that one article alone. What you fail to remember is that there is a living person out there reading this nonsense on the internet about them and comparing it to the French version and thinking why we turned their biography into some sort of humorous religious reference stub fest. Why don't you actually expand the article, and add the material as the source says, not what you think should be in there. Giving weight to the trinity (I mean seriously) in an article about an economist based on a 30-character quote is just mind boggling. And if you have trouble with English then I suggest you stay away from BLPs. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not trivial. It's in all the articles. It's a fact. It's not humorous. The Christian origin of the rule should not be censored. Btw, what do you mean by "Bidget"?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I expanded the article a bit without reference to religion, hopefully you can continue. There are four more sources there (my French is bad but the German one is pretty good from a coverage perspective). §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Why are you censoring religion?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

81. vandal[edit]

Best to leave him be. He's also hit my Talk page and I expressly undid the latest revert of his changes, requesting others to let his edits stand. Like a misbehaving child such folks know that they can get attention by misbehaving -- so reverting only reinforces the attention-seeking behavior. After a while he (I'm betting it's a "he") will get bored and we can quietly fix things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Robin Raphel[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robin Raphel you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yash! -- Yash! (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Another user adding unsourced BLP's of people[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramoneremmie

I sent them a notice also-they have several of them that have not been tagged for deletion (someone did remove the BLP unsourced tags before for footballers saying they are the easiest to get-though one case was I couldn't find anyone with that name but still) Wgolf (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog reversed ny recent edits[edit]

Jytdog has been editing my Sawdust Art Festival page and has inserted historical information that is incorrect. At his suggestion, I just spent 3 hours, fixing the page, including adding viable references. Then he reversed everything and wrote that if i did that again, I would be banned from editing. I am embarassed to show people this page. Can you help me? or feel free to call me

Artwriter21532 June 2, 2015, 22:20 (UTC)

@Artwriter21532: I'm sorry but I agree with Jytdog, although his warning was a bit harsh I think, and "banning" has a different meaning than "blocking". However, you're getting up there in exhausting the patience we have with new editors. I tagged the article because it was written as an advertisement, myself and others trimmed it and reworded it to get it to a decent state, and then here you add things like independent-minded artists, extensive quotations as references (not acceptable) and overall just turned the article again into a brochure with a cute narrative. This is not your article in any sense of the word, you need to work within our guidelines or simply stop editing. My concern with your edits and the kind of language you use was the root of my suspicion that you have a conflict of interest - it's always the editors who are too close to the subject or have been given directions and material to transcribe that seem to be unable to see why the tone they use is inappropriate. A lot of the stuff you added as well had references to citations that did not support the claims. Why is it so difficult to understand that you must write what your sources say and nothing more? Please understand that as a community we'd rather have an incomplete stub than something that reads like a "Come visit us" brochure prepared by the people who run the event. I hope it doesn't get to that, but it will if you insist on trying to add material that is unsourced or promotional in nature. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand. But the historical information as it is is somewhat inaccurate - and if people who know about the Sawdust, read the page, they might not trust Wikipedia. I would like to make the page accurate.

My next talk message to you will be the text of my proposed changes.

Thank you!

Artwriter21532 June 2, 2015, 22:46 (UTC)

You can add as much historical information as you wish, so long as it's backed by sources and not written like a brochure. I'm not going to assess your material, add it to the article if you feel it is appropriate, or don't. If it's not, then we'll revert it and you can rework, etc. That's how Wikipedia works. Also, it helps when you make small, incremental changes. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what to do with your recent posting on your page about the Sawdust Art Festival page. Please advise!

Artwriter21532 June 3, 2015, 04:45 (UTC)

You mean the material I removed because I asked you not to post it here? You posted it in the article talk page. I'm not sure what it is that you want from me - if the material was removed once, what makes it suddenly be appropriate because you posted it in the talk page? You want someone else to fix it? Why don't you listen to what we have been telling you and simply correct it? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I just dropped by to say thanks for closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Armstrong (diver) - it was a difficult call, considering the amount of debate it engendered. I just noticed that the poster in the thread above supplied personal information - perhaps you missed that, but I've removed it (apologises for refactoring your talk page). Can I suggest you might want to revdel that information? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thanks for that. Honestly I didn't notice, but they've been posting that in various places so I guess the removal is enough, unless they ask me to. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hasq article[edit]

Hi, this article received a deletion notice recently and was deleted yesterday. Unfortunately I only found out this today. This is very disappointing as I (the author) did not have a chance to discuss what was wrong with it. Two questions I have now are: why it was marked for deletion in the first place and what steps should be taken to restore it. Thank you.Wladp (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I only closed the discussion. You are welcome to open a deletion review if you believe the opinions of the editors involved and/or the deletion rationale given by the nominator were incorrect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris "Zeuss" Harris[edit]

Hello FRF! I noticed the Wiki page for producer Chris "Zeuss" Harris has been deleted. I'd like to help get it back up, with whatever fixes are necessary.

Please note that when one enters "ZEUSS" or "Chris Zeuss Harris" into the Wiki search engine, numerous results emerge, as he's mentioned in multiple entries on rock albums and bands.

He's produced record with Rob Zombie, Hatebreed, The Murderdolls, and another of other notable acts, and there are Wiki entries on many of his rock producer peers.

Here's some backup to what I'm saying:

<ref>http://www.allmusic.com/artist/zeuss-mn0001833532</ref> <ref>http://www.discogs.com/artist/270424-Zeuss</ref><ref>http://zeuss.virb.com</ref>

I'm guessing the previous entry lacked sources and/or proper formatting.

Can you help?

Thanks! VictorCreedxXx (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)VictorCreedxXx

Can you provide me with a link to the page please? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

a page that does have a copyright violation but not sure if I can put it for a speedy[edit]

ElrubiusOMG-the Youtube section is a copyright violation of a page in Spanish (which the prod was removed for that I put up for) but yeah not sure what to say. Wgolf (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: You know better than to leave a BLP like that! Take it to AFD, I searched google.es and there's no way this guy meets WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I did have it as a Blp prod-but the fact the article claims to be the biggest youtuber in Mexico did seem to have some sort of notability Wgolf (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Not Mexico, Spain. Also, I take back the AFD thing, he does probably meet GNG at least. But that needs to be sourced and made a proper article if it is to exist beyond stubland. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Francjñg[edit]

tengo una duda, no se si esta PU viola la política de usuarios lo veo promocional, usted podría mirar y si procede, borrarlo, si usted no puede borrar, le agradecería que le dijera al que puede, Gracias y Saludos. --201.127.24.147 (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Efectivamente, la pagina estaba en contra de las politicas de las paginas de usuario y ha sido eliminada. Gracias. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Panzer 88[edit]

I'll just work on it from the draft. That way the original author will get credit if it becomes an article later on. Thanks Casseb (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Linking rules[edit]

I am not fully on board with your advice at the teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#linking_from_Wikipedia_articles_to_draft_article. Rather than debate it there I thought I would discuss it with you here to see if I'm missing something. If I am missing something and your advice is fine there will be no need to modify the teahouse answer but if I persuade you, then a nice clean adjustment to the advice can be made.

I agree that articles in main space should not have links to articles in draft space. However, your advice suggested that the reverse is also true; that articles in draft space should not have links to articles in main space. If we adopt that literally it means that all articles in draft should have no links and links should not be added until the draft is moved to main space. I don't believe that is our recommended practice.

Do you disagree?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Not at all, of course not. No one would be able to make a decent draft :) Thank you for letting me know, I added a clarification to my answer just in case and feel free to chime in! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your clarifying sentence; perfect.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

From the backlogs-not sure to tag this as a speedy or a prod[edit]

Mariachi Corazon De Acero-part of me wants to go with DB-band while another just says prod/afd-so what would you pick you think? It comes across as a band that is just there and nothing yet and too soon. But on the other hand....(I removed all the refs as they were to Facebook and Instagram) Wgolf (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: A7 + G11. Not even hard. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't even notice til about 10 minutes ago the users name was the same lol. Wgolf (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Speedy indeed and my searches found no good coverage to suggest notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Robin Raphel[edit]

In case you you missed. — Yash! (Y) 06:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yash!: I did miss it, I forgot to add the GA transclude to my watchlist :\ Thank you, I'll work on those over the next few days. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Aisha Buhari[edit]

Hello frog,

How are you doing today? I created the article, Aisha Buhari, the current First Lady of Nigeria and the page was formerly redirected from her husband Muhammadu Buhari. Is there a way you can delete the redirect to give me the credit? Thanks in anticipation Froggy! Wikigyt@lk to M£ 20:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wikicology: I would say no, because there's no reason based on policy or guidelines that I could think of. Don't worry about who created the redirect - content is more important. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No Copyright Violation[edit]

Frog, I appreciate your hard work, but the Meaning and Culture of Grand Theft Auto page did not have a blatant Overdrive copyright violation. I corrected that problem immediately when I saw it. It was only reporting 14% when the page was deleted--and those were all common words and titles. If I did something else wrong please let me know. The page was identical in format to other approved pages.

Federicohazard (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)federicohazard

Nevertheless, the initial tagging of the bot was correct, since you pasted the second paragraph of this verbatim into the article. Either way those revisions had to go. And you shouldn't have removed the bot tag, or the speedy either. I can restore the last revision to a draft and let you work on it if you want. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"that's fine bot"[edit]

Are you talking to bots now? Next thing you'll be eating virtual cookies. I'm confident that therapy could help you. I can recommend a really good Internet shrink.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots are people too! Well, kinda Face-grin.svg §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Erica Muhl Article[edit]

Hi there,

Everything I added came from a career profile in one book: The World of Women in Classical Music by Ann Gray.

I agree I can add these elements more slowly, over time, and change the tone. How do I cite this book better?

Thanks!

128.125.222.40 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Remember you need to paraphrase, not transcribe. That's also important because you don't want to get into copyright violations. Generally when there's a single source, the less material the better, otherwise it looks like an ad for the book and the subject. To learn how to cite your sources see WP:CITE (there's a link to a simplified guide at the top). When in doubt, go to the TeaHouse for general editing questions, and I'd recommend creating an account. Also, you'll want to read this if it applies to you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Question re: suspicious null edits[edit]

Hey, I just wanted to ask you something as an admin and you're the first name I picked from ANI-- on the Ratchet & Clank article, I've seen a couple IPs going in and making some weird edits over the last few weeks-- either completely null 1-character back-and-forth reverts, or just one-word changes in a bunch of unnecessary consecutive edits. I'm not sure if it constitutes obvious vandalism to justify a warning or an AIV report, as I'm willing to consider it could be a newbie to WP experimenting with editing... It's obviously not to speed up autoconfirmation, so the only other reason I can imagine is to give the appearance of an established contrib list, but since I'm not really sure about what should be done, and it seemed all-around suspect or at least annoying, I thought I'd ask. What's your take on it?

The IPs I've noticed doing this as far as the article history goes are 95.66.147.254 and 171.249.165.133. BlusterBlaster beepboop 14:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@BlusterBlaster: Looks like primarily some vandalism mixed with some hesitant (maybe) editing... one of those IPs also removed some vandalism from the other. But mostly vandalism, perhaps because it's summer vacation time in the U.S. I semi-protected the article for a week, we'll see what happens when that expires. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks aplenty! Face-smile.svg BlusterBlaster beepboop 17:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

MetaProp NYC article speedy deletion[edit]

Hi FreeRangeFrog,

The page I wrote up, MetaProp NYC, was speedily deleted and I believe it was because it was thought to be advertising for the company. I'm not sure why and what was written that made it seem to be advertising the company; I simply wanted to write a description of the venture capital that wasn't already on Wikipedia. Can you please let me know what needs to be changed and how I can get the editing for my article back so I can fix whatever it is that made it deleted.

MetaProp NYC is the #1 real estate technology accelerator that recently opened applications for its 2015/2016 class of 8 startups. It has been in the news: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/16/metaprop-nyc-launch-idUSnPn7lMxdB+89+PRN20150616?irpc=932 . It also has its own website, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

In no way was I trying to advertise the company and I would like to change whatever it is in the article that I need to change in order to let the page be public.

Please let me know what I have to do to make MetaProp NYC's Wikipedia page public.

Thank you, Slyandvert 173.70.36.93 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually I didn't delete it originally, you see my account there because I deleted an unnecessary redirect that was created after the speedy deletion for advertisement. In any case, you'll want to read this carefully, and then this to proceed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft[edit]

How to create a draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.209.40.111 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:AFC is where. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Please now accept my article. This person is highly notable. A simple google search will bring lots o news articles about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.209.40.111 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Go create a draft, someone will review and accept it if the subject meets the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I have created a draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vijay_Shekhar_Sharma can you review please? I have provided many references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.209.40.111 (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A page I made back in September turned out to have the same article but a different name and has been listed as merge for a while.[edit]

Craig Davies (designer) and Craig Hayes (special effects artist), forgot about this till now-but yeah I made it as the other one was not linked anywhere and couldn't find the page till after I made it-wanted to point this out as I'm not sure what to say. Though the article I made is the name that he seems to be credited as. Wgolf (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that none of them has a particularly long history, I'd say pick the best one, merge and redirect the other. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Kitchen community listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kitchen community. Since you had some involvement with the Kitchen community redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Lowellian (reply) 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)[edit]

I did not remove content, I merely moved it to Wikipedia talk:Freedom of Panorama 2015. Would you kindly revert it back? The discussion isn't getting the attention it deserves in the village pump. Like the SOPA discussion I strongly believe it needs its own subpage. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You're free to revert yourself. Since you did not provide a clear summary of what you were doing I thought you had removed 67K of material (including comments by other editors) by mistake. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I apologize for the misunderstanding, you are absolutely right. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

A page I found on the new page feed where the other language article says copyright issues-yet I don't know for what[edit]

Ruggero Marino-no clue what page it is copyrighted from though (only reason why I noticed was because on the Italian page the top says copyright notice or something like that) Wgolf (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wgolf: The tag in the Italian article claims the copyvio is from here, although it seems to be dead and there is no Google cache of it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

John Cryan[edit]

Dear FreeTRangeFrog, I have tried to protect that page again, but I dont know if it works. Please look after it. There is persistant removal of referenced material. Cruks (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cruks: I invited the IP to provide a conflicting source, if they continue simply removing the information I will protect again. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

That very good, in the German article it appeared also today. They have protected now again the article until 27 September 2015. Cruks (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...[edit]

...for your kind words of support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of the trust placed in me. And to avoid getting myself any new notches on my block log any time soon. :-) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: My pleasure. I'm sure you will be a great admin. And if you need help with anything, just holler. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll let you know if/when I need a hand. I'm sure it'll be sooner rather than later. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Deleted File[edit]

You recently, and rightfully, deleted File:Reading of Mao Quotations.wav for the reason of pure vandalism. I was wondering if there was any way for that file to be retrieved, and if so, could I have it? Mentitor (talk) 01:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. There's no easy way to get the file to you without email, and Wikipedia does not support attachments in emails (assuming you had enabled it in your account). More importantly, there is absolutely zero value to that file, none. At least the one for the Bhutanese passport was amusing. You might try contacting the original creator, I'm sure they have a copy on their computer. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

New Article Deleted[edit]

Hello, My name is Samantha.

I recently created an article titled Gaia Herbs, which was deleted on June 17th. This is my first article I have tried to publish on Wikipedia.The reason for the deletion was: G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. As I certainly did not want it to come across as "advertising" I have edited the article substantially and wondered if I could submit it again. I am also happy to send it to you first.

Please let me know how best to proceed.

Thanks

Samanthalloyd (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You're going to want to submit your draft here, and probably read through this as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Michael Barbuto" article Deleted[edit]

Hi there! My name is Michael Barbuto and I am new to wikipedia. I created a username/account for myself and then composed an article (about myself) to be posted to wikipedia, which I later found out is not allowed. As such, my article was deleted by you. My question: Is there a way to retrieve or recover my deleted article entitled, "Michael Barbuto"?? If so, is there a way to have it posted? Appreciate the help. (Mbarbuto (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)).

If you feel you meet this and/or this and can actually prove it via secondary sources (media coverage, not your own material or IMDb) then you're welcome to submit a draft here for review. This is also recommended reading. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

vandal report[edit]

JosephBarbero is at it again! And he's harassing me as well. He needs to be blocked permanently ASAP. Visokor (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Visokor: I agree that's too much, especially coming back from the previous block. Please raise the issue at WP:ANI, I will comment. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've put the issue up like you told me to. Visokor (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)