User talk:FreeRangeFrog/Archive 4

Typosphere

Guten Abend.

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

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

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

SPI case(s)

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

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

About: Elisa Rego

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

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

Page curation

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

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

Angelo Antonio Toriello's deletion.

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

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

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

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

List of systemically important banks

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

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

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

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

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

AN comment

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Tanaza Article

Hello FreeRangeFrog,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nikki Phoenix article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for defending me!

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

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

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

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

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

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

Polina Such

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

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

List of Bus Routes in York

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

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

My contribution

Hi

Thanks for your message.

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

Please remove it as soon as possible.

Regards,

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

Hi

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

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

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

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

bias?

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: Sadiya siddiqui

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

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

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

Deletion Cancelled

Hi,

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

Thanks,

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

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

List of Monster Rancher EVO Monsters

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

I have unreviewed a page you curated

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

Talkback

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

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

In Reply to your feedback

Hi Frog, I received your feedback for

The Tyrant (antihero, film franchise and lifestyle brand)

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

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

The Tyrant may refer to:

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

Please help me understand the best next steps.

Thank you,

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

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

Help needed

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

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

OTRS

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Re-submitting Deleted Post

Hi there,

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

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

Also, why was it considered spam?

Many thanks in advance,

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

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

FieldTrip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

deletion of spreaker

Hi there,

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

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

Also, why was it considered spam?

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

Speedy deletion declined: Trappole

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

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

Indented line

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

XRIZ and oh,,,,

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

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

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

I think enough time has passed to safely nominate candidates again, let me know if you are still willing. Secret ^account 16:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

RE speedy deletion of Abine

Hey there, froggy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

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

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

Ticket with my name on it

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

Talkback

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

Keith 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Bucky Halker

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

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

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

added a link pointing to Android

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

added a link pointing to Aleksey German

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

Your submission at Articles for creation

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

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

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

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

Speedy Deletion of Replify Page

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

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

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

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reviewing my article!

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

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

Proposed deletion of Angel gracia

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

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

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

simple revert was all that was needed?

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

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

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

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

Kenny Clutch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott Pompe page

Dear Wiki colleague FreeRangeFrog,

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

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

Let me share a quote with you.

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can't you just tag Gellman for deletion? And then if someone removes the tag, you can just take it to AfD? 76.189.111.199 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just did a major rewrite of the Gellman article. Here are the before and after versions. Before my fixes, there were 13 references showing, but it was actually 4 references being used over and over again as separate sources. I just named each of the 4 sources. In any case, the article should be deleted, so my edits are just to clean it up until then. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That looks better. Well, better in the sense that it looks less notable, if that was at all possible. Go ahead and PROD it if you want, I doubt it will stick for long, but if it's contested I'll bring it to AFD in the next few days. Or of course you could always AFD it yourself... if you had an account §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather you tag or AfD it. You're a registered, respected editor with a lot of experience with deletions. Thanks! 76.189.111.199 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just overhauled Scott Pompe. Here are the before and after versions. My edit summary explains the issues. Hopefully, though, you'll tag it or just take it straight to AfD. ;) 76.189.111.199 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added a PROD tag to Gellman v. Tribune Company and a tag on the creator's talk page, but I'm not sure if I did either one of them correctly. If I did either one of those incorrectly, can you please fix it? Thanks! 76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah! I got you to do a PROD. See? No biggie. I endorsed it. Let's see if it sticks, if not I'll take it to AFD. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha, yes you did! :P But I was nervous because I wasn't sure if I was doing it properly. I see you "seconded" it. Alright, we'll see if it sticks. But if it doesn't I'm definitely leaving the AfD part to you. ;) 76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a deal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Donald Arthur

Could you give more details about why you removed most of Donald Arthur's page/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Volpe (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The page was 'stubbed' after I requested it be protected from editing due to a formal legal communication received by the Wikimedia Foundation. All the material is in the article's history, but for now the only thing people will be able to see is the stub. After the issue with the complaint is sorted out, we will restore the page to a state consistent with our policy on biographies of living persons. As to when the page will be restored, I cannot say. We'll have to wait until the legal back and forth is complete, and I have no visibility into that process. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Would you like

me to rev/del a couple of talk page edits for you? Let me know on my talk page if you do. I think that's the best way to go myself. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, you caught me just in time, off to bed now! Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

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

Engelbertha Krupp (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mengen

Trial on the Road (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aleksey German

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

COI tag placement

Hi there, could you please outline at Talk:Judith Collins#COI_tag why you placed the tag? Schwede66 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure whether you've watchlisted Judith Collins, but I've replied to your talk page contribution. Schwede66 21:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sir David Piper

I'm not going to move it back now you've done it, but for future reference: "Sir may be used in article titles as a disambiguator when a name is ambiguous and one of those who used it was knighted". (WP:NCPEER) — Paul A (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'll move it back, no big deal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Splash Kingdom Waterpark

I have deleted Splash Kingdom Waterpark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at your request. I wasn't sure which article you were asking to have moved to that title, but you should be able to execute the move now. --B (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem, I'll do the moves meself. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

you do realize every time you delete my page on Keaton Henson im gonna put it back up cos I copy and pasted it on my computer

Keaton Henson

You gave me hardly any time too add in the talk page, please don't delete it.

(talk page stalker) FRF, I've added some potentially WP:GNG-meeting reliable ref suggestions here and here.

This might appear to an independent third party as undermining both FisherQueen's and your work.

This might also appear to me as undermining FisherQueen's and your work, and I am me.

Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edit on Finlay Quaye

Hi, please see the talk page for Finlay Quaye re your "minor" edit. Azkm (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Failed verification

Hi there, I was just wondering how you determined that these references failed verification. Do you have those books, and found that he isn't mentioned on those pages (in which case you should remove the invalid refs), or are you just assuming that an offline source is not verifiable? {{Failed verification}} clearly states that it should only be used if you have checked the source (point 2 in the instructions) and WP:OFFLINE states that books are acceptable references, even if they aren't available online. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that was my bad. The first ISBN is fake. It doesn't exist. Searching for the supposed name of the author and/or the title also yields no hits whatsoever, which is odd for a 2004 publication. The second ISBN is indeed a book about baseball, but it doesn't contain a single instance of the name. As 'Taquito' is a viable nickname but it is not derived from a specific first name (e.g., Jose is Pepe, as John can be Jack), I searched instead only for the last name (which is a common family name in the Spanish-speaking world) without success. There are no web hits whatsoever for the title, other than this article, and a user page on es.wiki. I find it amazing that this would be the case, considering it's a living person and presumably a coach with the Oakland Athletics. Even if the first book indeed existed, I would be very weary of accepting a BLP based on a single offline source. Thus my application of the BLP PROD. As you've contested it, I cannot PROD it again, so I suggest you take it to AFD as a hoax. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

the first isbn seems to exist in some databases, ie this one. I've tagged it into the baseball and DR WikiProjects, so hopefully someone from there can assist. If you can conclusively prove that the refs are fake, then you can remove them and renominate it under BLP proof, it is only normal prod that are one time only. If the name is a nickname it might explain why it is hard to find, but yes, it would be surprising if someone working in the USA is not covered online, somewhere. I'm not going to AFD it, as I don't feel I know enough about the subject, nor the likely refs, to satisfy WP:BEFORE, but feel free to do it yourself. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited De Marchi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sportswear (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) 10:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright infringement in a Hindi Wikipedia article

Hi FreeRangeFrog, the copyright violation problem of hi:वानस्पतिक नाम article has been fixed. Thanks for notifying us! — Bill william compton^Talk 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bencana alam di asia tenggara 2012

Thanks for finding the language and adding it, I was looking at the language chart when I noticed you already solved it! Thanks again! --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and then I went and added it to the wrong section at WP:PNT. Off to sleep :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for your input

I noticed that you are very active at BLPN and seem to provide excellent feeback, so I was hoping you could give your thoughts in this discussion. I will not mind one bit if you disagree with my views on the issue; I simply want editors who are very experienced with BLPs to give their input. I will respect whatever the correct way of handling this dispute is, even if it's not what I want. I'm just really concerned because this is about a BLP article and involves contentious content. Thank you. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. I didn't comment on that because I saw the Captain was on it, but I'll take a look here in a bit. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your time. Sorry to bother you with this. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Award

		The Biography Barnstar
		In recognition of your work at BPLN and BLP's in general. Well done! — Keithbob • Talk • 20:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Thank you! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey FreeRangeFrog; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Gandra (Esposende) Article

Hi FreeRange Frog,

Just wanted to say thank you for your assistance and encouragement. I'm new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes and I appreciate you backing me up and not deleting my article as well as your suggestions and tips. Have a great day:-) PersonZ777 (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it was my pleasure. These things sometimes do happen, and new contributors tend to get discouraged by them. I hope that won't be the case here. If you need any help, don't hesitate to drop me a line. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Filmmaking Review speedy deletion - don't agree

Why did you speedy delete this page? It now illogically loops back on itself to the founder page. That website is an online magazine which has more kudos than a lot of other website magazines listed in Wikipedia. I wanted to add SelfPublishing Review as well but now I want to challenge this deletion because it is now illogical in its pathway and is a website of some note - you can see on the page there are a lot of followers and a quick search tells you that website got 60,000 views this month. It makes no sense to delete it as it is an established magazine.

I am not biased with this, just trying to make a good job of the page.

I would like you to undo that change.10:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisato (talk • contribs)

I didn't speedy it (not that I could anyway), it was turned into a redirect. Notability is not inherited, and your article made no assertion to notability other than the association with the person in question. There is no such thing as an article created to "compliment" another one, each topic must show standalone notability. That wasn't the case here. You are free to turn it back into an article, but be aware that if you fail to establish notability (under WP:GNG or WP:WEB), it could be turned back to a redirect, or simply proposed for deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You, Me, and Us (band)

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Impressed

I've been wandering around in BLP's lately. And I keep running into you. It's an area I always find interesting and challenging. We've agreed and we've disagreed.

Whether the former or the latter, I've been impressed with your ability to focus on the edit, rather than the editor. My participation on wikipedia ebbs and flows. Right now I'm on a lot. When I back off, it's usually been because I grow tired of officiousness, trolls or both. Your example is proving to an antidote. You may conclude that, last night, I went overboard on the football page we've discussed. I hope you also conclude that I've trimmed back my edits this morning appropriately. If not, please trim back further. You're obviously well-versed in these things. I'll not bitch or moan.

On another matter, given your user name, you seem to be someone to consult on a contentious topic in my household: In English, we usually render the sound a frog makes as "ribbet", pronounced rih-bit. But, in French, do frogs say rih-bay? David in DC (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I thought that was fine, I think it's a good process, and credit goes to you for having reported it at BLP/N. I'm always happy to take a look at stuff, if I can be helpful. What ended up being included is definitely OK in my opinion. As for the pronunciation, I'll have to get back to you. Haven't met a Gallic amphibian yet §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In Ancient Greek they said "Brekekekèx-koàx-koáx". JohnCD (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Frogs! Love it. Should have used Βρεκεκεκὲξ κοὰξ κοάξ as a signature :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is not a lot known about how ancient Greek was actually pronounced, particularly the vowels. Somewhere in the literature there is a sheep, and what it says is "βη", which suggests that "η" was more "aa" than "ee". Of course, there were probably regional variations. JohnCD (talk) 20:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Typically one needs consensus to add controversial text to an article. Please obtain consensus before attempting to add this content again. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Update

The BLP/N discussion regarding Veena Malik moved to the article's talk page a few days ago, where it should have been handled in the first place. However, an editor (Ronz) refuses to discuss that matter with the other involved editors there and has taken the disruptive step of reopening the previously closed BLP/N. The editor is violating the talk page guidelines regarding posting the same thread in multiple forums. Can you please close the BLP/N again and instruct in the close that the matter be isolated to the article's talk page, where the other editors are close to resolution? Thanks. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you guys agree to keep it in the talk page then? There's no point on arguing in two places, but there needs to be agreement as to where the discussion will continue. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes someone doesn't want to discuss some concerns. That would be 76.189.111.2 :[1] [2][3][4][5][6]

If you have suggestions on how to proceed, I'd really like to hear them.

As for the BLPN discussion, I'm trying to get it back on track, and so think it should be kept open.

As for the talk page discussion, I don't think it's helpful to continue it at this time until 76.189.111.2 is willing to discuss his/her comments to date in another venue. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, it doesn't matter where you guys want to talk this out, but it does need to be one place. So make up your minds. As to suggestions, quite honestly the amount of time spent on this is excessive. Just omit the birth date from the bio and call it a day. When you have an unambiguous and uncontested secondary source then add it back in. We routinely omit birth dates from bios for this very reason. In fact there are examples of that very thing on BLP/N right now. Just exclude it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FreeRange, as you'll see in the article's talk page discussion, the other three editors have been nearing a resolution and now all agree to add content regarding the age issue. The only unresolved issue is what exactly that content should be. As you'll see, once the other three editors came to that agreement, Ronz stopped participating on the talk page. Unfortunately, Ronz has repeatedly taken the discussion to several other forums, at the same time, in violation of WP:MULTI. As you clearly see in the article's talk page discussion, two other editors and myself have been very clear in addressing the issues and providing specific suggestions, yet Ronz inexplicably refuses to budge, and instead keeps citing irrelvant or inapplicable guidelines even though others have clearly explained his misunderstandings. In any case, the issue at hand at this moment is closing the BLP/N as the discussion cannot take place, per WP:MUTLI, in a bunch of different forums at the same time. By doing this, Ronz is being quite disuptive by making it impossible for other editors to be aware of or follow the discussion. For the record, Ronz has ignored several requests about posting on my talk page regarding this matter and was asked to keep it on the article's talk page. He also has removed warnings issued on his own talk page regarding this behavior which borders on harassment. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Ronz did not see where FreeRange said, "it doesn't matter where you guys want to talk this out, but it does need to be one place". This is the only reason I started this thread; to get this damn discussion in one forum, per policy. The details can be worked out there. Also FreeRange, I'm not sure if you've seen the latest distracting sub-thread Ronz has started at BLP/N. Please close the BLP/N and direct discussion to the talk page. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Article 'marked as reviewed' what is that?

Hello. You just marked an article I created as reviewed -Eliza and Isabella Riddel. This seems like it's probably a stupid question, but what does that mean? What did you do? I looked on the history of both the article and the talk page and there was no change. I did a search for the term and was no wiser.

Thanks for what you just did, I suppose. Whatever it was. Penguin2006 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's called "page curation". See WP:CURATE. It's a sort of review of newly-created pages. No changes are made to the page, other than marking them as reviewed in a separate log. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that explained it very well.

On another subject, just in case you know the answer too. I've been having trouble with watching pages. I watched your talk page after I left my question here. But then, after a few minutes, my watch on your talk page disappeared. So I didn't catch your reply until I came here to double check. That happened several times for different pages. both for watching and unwatching pages. And I've been trying to edit one page. but it just reverts without any mention of it in the history. I edit it again and the second time it takes. I've never had this happen before in years of Wikipedia. Do you know what's going on? Thank you. Penguin2006 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, no. I haven't seen anything like that. The only reason a page might go off the watchlist is because you were the last editor to change it, or because it got filtered somehow. Are you using the default settings? Fiddling with those might cause the issue you're seeing. And thank you for the froggy!! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be okay now, it was only happening for 5 or 6 hours. I haven't changed any settings today so I'm none the wiser. I thought perhaps server lag? It did make me think I was going loopy the first time it happened. As a precaution, I'm saving all large chunks of writing to my hard drive as well, but I do that anyway while I work on longer articles.

And you're welcome. Your work is definitely worth a soggy froggy or two. Penguin2006 (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Server lag is an issue sometimes, but when that happens you should be seeing a notice at the top of the page to the effect that "changes X seconds long are not shown" or something like that. If you're not seeing that then it must be something else. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I realised it happened the same day that I finally merged all my Wikimedia global accounts. I think that must have been it. Penguin2006 (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

For reviewing pages

	Have a soggy Irish frog
	I was hoping there were people on Wikipedia checking all the new articles created, so I'm glad to find it's indeed happening. Cheers. Penguin2006 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you going to do?

Are you going to close the BLP/N about Malik or not? At 18:28, you said here that the discussion "does need to be in one place". At 19:29 on the article's talk page, you said, "I'm about to close the BLP/N discussion to keep this in one place". Then at 19:34, instead of closing the BLP/N, you posted another comment there. We cannot possibly have a reasonable discussion if it's taking place in multiple forums. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to close it, he asked a perfectly valid question that is better seen by more eyes than are looking at the article talk page. It doesn't matter where the discussion takes place, but I agree with you that it needs to be in a single place. That said, you are taking this way too seriously. When you have an assertion that is supported by three sources that may or may not be correct, it's better to just not make the assertion at all. That's the whole point. Also, I am hardly the boss of BLP/N. If there is support for continuing a discussion there, there's no need to close it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who said you were going to close it. "Too seriously"? We're talking about a BLP. Do you want editors to take it as a joke? And you're completely missing the point and, more importantly, completely misunderstanding proper editing regarding reliably-sourced, encylopedic content. Again, the subject herself has stated her age mutliple times. It matters not one bit if it's her actually birth date or not. The only thing that's important is that we have reliable sources where she states her age; therefore, we have a duty to include it in the article. No one is saying to report the age as fact, but to report what she says her age is as fact. You're totally misunderstanding our responsibility as editors. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

And do you actually believe that asking if we can use scanned documents like a birth certificate or passport is a "perfectly valid question"? Seriously? And keep in mind that it was clearly and fully answered previously in the discussion. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Two bios about the same person

As you've helped me before with BLP issues I thought I'd come to you for help with a rather strange case. Two separate bios about one person. Take a look at WP:Help desk#Double identity. In his "day job" he is a notable scientist David Sulzer and under a stage name Dave Soldier he is a notable musician. I believe the articles must be merged as they are a prohibited content fork, but I'm not really sure. Roger (talk) 10:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at both articles and knowing he wrote both of them, I'd say the artist one is actually more notable than the scientist, which does have a mention of a few awards but is generally puffed up with technical descriptions of his work (I'd recommend checking if he meets WP:ACADEMIC anyway). Still, the correct approach would be to merge to the "real" persona, which is the scientist. If the merge gets rid of the excessive chunks of vanity, all the better. I wouldn't call it a fork per se, but I'd agree that once you trim both down to manageable size the material should fit in a single article, and that should be his real name. You just have to decide how much of each to include. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree that culling the peacocks would have to be part of the merge process. Roger (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Goodluck Jonathan

Hi there. Would you mind further commenting on the Goodluck Jonathan BLP discussion? I'd like to proceed with my expansion and work on the page but was hoping to get this settled beforehand. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 700 Clicks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 700 Clicks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/700 Clicks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Movement "Bulgaria of the Citizens"

I agree that the title isn't exactly the best. Bulgaria for the Citizens seems like an alternate translation. On the party website I found that the word "movement" doesn't appear on the party logo. Perhaps a more suitable title for the party would simply be: Bulgaria for the Citizens. We could also use the letters DBG (ДБГ) as the title. I could not find an English translation on the party website itself thus far. Hope to hear your input.

Kndimov (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In these articles I found (in English) [7] and [8] it refers to the Party as: "Bulgaria for Citizens Movement". I believe that this is the name we should change the Article to.

Kndimov (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

admin?

Have you ever run for RFA, or thought about it? You seem like a competent editor, you've got a spotless block log and loads of clue. Been around awhile too, have you ever given it thought? What's stopping you? Keeper | 76 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, someone else brought that up and I am thinking about it but I am scared . Actually I went through the failed RFAs and I'm trying to address some of the more common objections I see there, although I guess it takes time for example to do a bunch of content work (which I love!). There are only so many hours in a day. But I'll get there eventually. Plus I'm still learning stuff every day! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, take heart to know that someone noticed that you are doing nice work around here, even if you never try out an rfa. Glad to hear you're enjoying it too; if you aren't enjoying it, the pay certainly sucks, so it isn't much of a hobby then, is it? :-) I like doing admin work behind the scenes, but I burned out a few years back and I'm only just starting to get active again/enjoy it. It ended up being a 4 year break :-). So, don't feel like there's any hurry to rfa. If you ever run, you have my permission to let me know, I'll gladly support. Keeper | 76 03:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! And I'm glad to hear you're back and and also enjoying it again. I think that's important, because yeah, the pay sucks :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:StrawberryFrog Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:StrawberryFrog Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:StrawberryFrogLogo.png

A tag has been placed on File:StrawberryFrogLogo.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

File:StrawberryFrog Logo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StrawberryFrog Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)