User talk:Doublefrog

Ping me here!

Prior name?[edit]

Hello. Have you ever edited under a prior name, or as an IP? I notice that you immediately started editing at AfD with your first edits under this name. Which we rarely see with completely new editors. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: I did edit early without an account but realised there are several things that can't be done without an account like AFDs etc. Thank You! Doublefrog (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem -- as evidenced above, and as evidenced at the Appel AfD, to be jumping into nominating articles for deletion without understanding the process, and without it would appear doing a wp:before search. I would urge you to first follow and participate in AfDs, before nominating articles for deletion, to pick up valuable experience first. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just so I'm quite clear -- you never edited by another user name, nor do you do so now? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: I have nominated only those articles which are auto-bio and also lack or have no sources and references thereby failing WP:N and WP:BLP and is most cases aligning with WP:COI as well. :) Doublefrog (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: - You are free to revert my edits. I wouldn't mind at all. :) I sometimes feel Wikipedia is becoming a social network than an encyclopedia and there are so many articles which fails guidelines of Wikipedia. I am working to grave out such hidden articles. I would require your help in that. Regards Doublefrog (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came here with more or less the same question @Epeefleche: just asked. I routinely scan deletion lists, and your ADFs for Grant Barrett, Marty Appel, were so inappropriate that I began to wonder, then I saw Epeefleche's remark that you are a new editor, scanned the list and found your wildly inappropriate AFD for Dionysia-Theodora Avgerinopoulou. But, more than that, even for sophisticated people who know their way around other websites, figuring out WP lingo, mores, and quirks takes a lot of time. I know that I'm still mildly baffled, although I've been here for months and have had an unusual amount of time available for editing this spring. What I'm here to say is that I find it impossible to believe that someone could have made the series of complex, rapid edits you made over the last 5 days unless they had been editing for a long time, with a username. I could be wrong, I used to think the dinosaurs were lizards, but I simply do not believe that you are new here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I have already given clarification above as well. There are people who straight away join wiki with an account and then edit. Moreover certain admins passed Rfa within 6 month. I was on wiki for a while before creating this account. I believed that certain actions can be taken with an account only. Doublefrog (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What was the IP you used to edit under?E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Gregory's comments (and question) above, I have a similar impression. The editing on the one hand has the earmarks of an editor who is not a complete newbie -- starting with, as a first clue, the first edits involving jumping in to AfD ... and in fact nominating articles at AfD. On the other hand, the nominations are poorly done -- and if you are a raw newbie, you should I would suggest stop nominating articles at AfD until you obtain more experience through participation and/or observation. Per all the above. You are, btw, required to perform a wp:before search. It doesn't matter whether sufficient refs appear in the article, to evidence notability or another wp notability standard. At all. Only whether they exist. See, for example, the unanimous disagreement with your nomination at the Marty Appel article, and the speedy keep. That's a waste of time of other editors -- you have to perform a wp:before search, and only nominate the article if it is appropriate ... which was not what you did there (and elsewhere). Epeefleche (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: - I completely acknowledge your suggestions and based on one your first message itself I did not proceed with any further nomination. Doublefrog (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at User talk:RichardOSmith shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I am permitted to remove stuff from my own talk page. Please read Wikipedia:User pages and stop reverting me. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading too fast. You seem to be unfamiliar with 3RR. It does not includes reverts on talk pages rather be of anyone. Moreover your reverts were abnormal as you indulged in reverting warnings upon incident at WP:AN which is not permitted. Doublefrog (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, users are allowed to delete whatever they like from their talk pages, with a few exceptions (like failed unblock requests when blocked)- their actions were completely legitimate. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Joseph2302. Are we permitted to revert edits on other's talk pages as well? Doublefrog (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only time you can revert content on another editor's talk page is if you are a) removing your own edit AND b) no one has responded to it yet. If someone has replied to your comment, you can not remove it from any talk page. You can remove talk page comments that are obviously vandalism if you have the editor's permission (which might be implicit). But this has to be obviously vandalism like gibberish or personal attacks. Otherwise, you can not remove other people's user talk page edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then RichardOSmith. I won't do any reverts on your page. Neither I expect you to do the same. The article of Unindian which spurred all this has been taken care of. So there is no reason for any further warring. Peace is always better than war. Doublefrog (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been creating new accounts?[edit]

There are currently 2 other new editors, both registered today, putting articles up for AfD. By any chance, are these sockpuppet accounts of this account? I only ask since it seems from above that you've had previous account(s), and so might be using multiple accounts. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: No. I haven't been creating any more account. Why will I need to do so? I am not loosing anything. Moreover it violates the community policy as well. I find no reason to abruptly disrupt this contructive project. Doublefrog (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah this is a sock puppet. I can smell them from a mile away. "I find no reason to abruptly disrupt this contructive project." That is clearly laced with sarcasm. Alex (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm. Not really. To me disruption makes no sense at all dear. There are system and technologies at Wikipedia to identify any socks. Well moreover my intentions were never bad at all. I thanked @Epeefleche: for his kind guidance and now I understand the policy of AFD and WP:SEARCH better. Doublefrog (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]