Jump to content

User talk:FreeRangeFrog/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

homealone1990

Why are you keep deleting my wiki page information??? (Linh Nga article) This is violating Wiki's policy. Your change is more than personal issue than the article itself problems. 04/16/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homealone1990 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


Neck Deep

Hello FRF, Thank you much for putting the protection from vandalism on the Neck Deep page. It was hard to keep up with the massive edits having to take place. Thank you, Niemannator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niemannator (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Is it possible to be added to the editing list for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niemannator (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Niemannator: Protected is protected - your account needs to be autoconfirmed at least. Or you can ask for changes in the talk page. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Naya Restaurants

removed promotional content. please check. I moving it to main URL--Snehilsharma (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit to African American Historical News Journals

Hello Free Range Frog,

Thanks for your message regarding my edit of the African American Historical News Journals. I apologize if it didn't work properly. Although the News Journal claims to be a compilation of actual historical news articles, it is actually a reproduction of a publication called the BLACK CHRONICLE, which uses a newspaper format to present African American history. I did remove much of the original copy and replace it with the following:

The vendor of the AAHJ claims it to be a compilation of actual articles from historical newspapers, but in fact, it is an exact reproduction of the BLACK CHRONICLE, an educational publication that uses a newspaper format to relate African American history from 1778 through 1956. The BLACK CHRONICLE was created in 1969 by Robert Miller, produced in 1971 by Blackside, Inc., and published that year by Holt, Rinehart and Winston. These copyrighted materials are currently is available on www.ourhistoryasnews.org

In the Edit Box, I wrote "The AAHJ is an unauthorized reproduction of an educational publication that uses a newspaper format to present African American history."

I realize that this is a major edit, but I believe it to be warranted, because, among other reasons, it violates the Wikipedia guidelines about listing material that is a violation of copyright. Let me know what you think.

Many thanks!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidgebird (talk • contribs) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

African American Historical News Journal

Hello Free Range Frog! Yesterday I sent you a message about my edit of the entry for the African-American Historical News Journal. As I explained, the AAHNJ claims to comprise actual articles from historical black newspapers from 1778 through 1956. In fact, the AAHJ is an unauthorized reprint of the BLACK CHRONICLE, a publication written by educators in the early 70s that uses a newspaper format to present African American history in an engaging format. The BLACK CHRONICLE's first issue (there are 14) is dated 1778 and its last issue is 1956. The BLACK CHRONICLE was produced in 1971 by Blackside, Inc., and published that year by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, which sold it in schools. The BLACK CHRONICLE is copyrighted by Robert Miller, the originator, and is available on www.ourhistoryasnews.org along with LA CRONICA, a similar treatment of Mexican American history. The AAHNJ has replaced the BLACK CHRONICLE title with its own.

How would you suggest I move ahead to correct the AAHNJ entry?

Thank you,

Pidgebird Pidgebird (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pidgebird: Sorry, I got sidetracked yesterday. I believe this issue was communicated previously to OTRS, where it was not resolved. My recommendation would be to nominate this for deletion, however you would have to provide proof of some sort that they are infringing on your copyright. User:DGG declined my original deletion proposal, and his input would be valuable there as well. If you have that proof, I'll be happy to create a deletion discussion where you can offer it up for inspection by other editors. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. If the AAHNJ is as you say it is, Pidgebird, then I would probably support 1/ creation of an article on the Black Chronicle, apparently an important educational publication -- however we have an article on a different publication by that name, Black Chronicle so it would be necessary to figure out someway of distinguishing them. 2/ mentioning the AAHNJ in the article as being an unauthorized reprint but giving no link to it per our standard procedure for copyvio sites 3/ Making a redirect from its name and abbreviation to the article on the BC. The first step you can take is to write an article on the BC, supporting your statements with references (such as reviews in educational or library periodicals), I'll be glad to look at it when you have it ready. As the OTRS volunteer probably told you, this is not a question for OTRS. You will need OTRS if you wish to reproduce part of your publication here, to assert your ownership of the copyright, but it cannot be used to prove something in an article as being correct: only published sources will do for that . DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again Free Range Frog,

Many thanks for your answer. It's thorough and extremely helpful. I will prepare a complete description of the BLACK CHRONICLE, its origins, publication and copyright information, as well as its unauthorized use in the AAHNJ, as you suggest. It will probably take me a few days, but I will get it back to you. By the way, I am aware of the Oklahoma daily, also named the Black Chronicle. That's obviously a daily newspaper, while the BLACK CHRONICLE we're discussing is, as I said, an educational publication. If you get a chance, take a look at it on www.ourhistoryasnews.org, along with LA CRONICA, in which a similar approach is used to relate Mexican American history from 1835 through 1969.

Again, I am very grateful for the information and advice.

Pidgebird

Pidgebird (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have become aware of this issue from an unrelated page. As we await more specific information on the Black Chronicle (though I expect that Pidgebird will turn out to be correct), I have reviewed the website linked from our article. It is apparent that the articles are modern simulations of newspaper articles, created for educational purposes, and are not drawn from newspapers of the 18th and 19th centuries. I have modified our article accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Request to Delete the African-American Historical News Journal entry

Dear Free Range Frog,

Thanks again for your advice. I hope that the following explanation clarifies my deep concern and will lead to the removal of the Wikipedia entry for the African-American Historical News Journal. (I apologize if it is somewhat lengthy; I wanted to be thorough!) After the explanation below, I have added a description of the BLACK CHRONICLE and of LA CRONICA, both of which I would like to offer as Wikipedia entries. By the way, to avoid confusion with the Oklahoma Daily, also called the BLACK CHRONICLE, I would suggest we call ours THE BLACK CHRONICLE: Our History As News.

The African-American Historical News Journal has, without authorization, published the entire contents of the BLACK CHRONICLE under its name, wrongly claiming that the articles are from authentic historical newspapers.

The BLACK CHRONICLE is an educational publication that uses a newspaper format to relate African American history from the American Revolution (1778) through the Civil Rights era in the 1950s. In each of fourteen issues, a key event is used as the lead story, with the remainder of the issue built up using features, news stories, editorials, advertisements and anecdotes. The design and writing styles reflect those of the contemporary periods, but the articles were written by educators under the supervision of historians, and reflect current historical thought and theory. Research for the BLACK CHRONICLE was conducted at the NYPL’s Arthur C. Schomburg Collection, Harvard University’s Weidner Library, the Boston Public Library, and many private collections.

The BLACK CHRONICLE was created in early 1970s by Robert A. Miller, produced by Blackside, Inc. (the producer of the award-winning “Eyes on the Prize”), and published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, which distributed it to schools in the 1970s. In addition to the fourteen newspaper issues, it also included a Kit with Teacher’s Guides, LP Records and overhead transparencies. It was copyrighted and trademarked in 1971. In 1999, the copyrights and trademark were transferred to Mr. Miller, and it now appears on his website, www.ourhistoryasnews.org. The copyright and trademark numbers: Copyright numbers: RE818152 (Textual work); RE815104 (Kit); Mark: 0957815

The AAHNJ claims that it is comprised of original articles from historical newspapers dating back to 1778. However, the AAHJ has lifted its entire contents from the BLACK CHRONICLE, changing its name to the African American Historical News Journals. The AAHJ’s first articles are said to be dated 1778, its last, in 1956 – the same dates as the first and last issues of the BLACK CHRONICLE. A quick look at the articles appearing on the AAHJ website (www.historicalnewsjournals.com) will tell even a casual reader that the articles are modern, not historical. In fact, all the articles that appear as examples on its website are lifted directly from the BLACK CHRONICLE. You can compare them by looking at the pages of the BLACK CHRONICLE, which appear on www.ourhistoryasnews.org. Here are some examples:

AAHJ Home Page: Tuskeegee-Industry for the Race (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 8, 1896, page 1)

AAHJ Category: Military Blacks Win Glory at Brandywine (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 1, 1778, page 1) Slave Steals Confederate Gunboat (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 5, 1862, page 1)

AAHJ Category: Education: Negro Convention Plans College (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 3, 1831, page 1) Black MD’s to Form Society (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 7, 1870, page 1) Booker T. Washington Honored (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 8, 1896, pg 1)

AAHJ Category: Politics Robeson Endorses Wallace for President (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 13, 1948, page 1)

The remaining articles (listed below) that appear on the AAHJ website are taken from interior pages of the BLACK CHRONICLE issues. Since only the front pages of the BLACK CHRONICLE appear on its website, I will be happy to send Wikipedia a complete set of BLACK CHRONICLE so you can confirm the above. AAHJ Category: Politics South Carolina Politics (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 7, 1870, page 2) Black Lt-Governor In D.C. (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 7, 1870, page 4) AAHJ Category: Religion Black Church Reaches South (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 5, 18622, pge 2) Negro Methodists Form Church (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 7, p2. 1877) AAHJ Category: Inventors: Negro Inventors Flourish (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 8, 1896, page 3) “The Greatest” (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Issue 8, 1896, page 3) AAHJ Category: Military Black Women Aid Union Troops (Taken from BLACK CHRONICLE, Iss. 5, 1862, pg 2)

The original and ongoing purpose of the BLACK CHRONICLE was to correct the distortions and omissions of American history, especially in regards to the contributions of African Americans. Letting the AAHJ remain on the Wikipedia site would be to introduce a more insidious distortion, by misleading readers about what is true and what is fiction.

Thank you for your attention.


Entries I would like to offer for inclusion in Wikipedia. Please let me know if there is another means of submission:

The BLACK CHRONICLE: Our History As News

The BLACK CHRONICLE is an educational publication that uses a newspaper format to relate African American history from the American Revolution through the Civil Rights era. Each of its 14 four-page issues is dated at an important moment in African American history, beginning in 1778, when the colonial armies offered freedom to slaves who fought against the British, and ending with the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1954. Along with a lead article, news stories, features, advertisements and anecdotes, all combine to create a multi-faceted moment in history. The design and writing styles reflect those of the historical periods. Research was conducted at the New York Public Library’s Arthur C. Schomberg Collection, Harvard’s Weidner Library, and many private collections. A teacher’s guide is also available. Copyrighted by Robert A. Miller. Produced by Blackside, Inc. Originally published in 1971 by Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Link: www.ourhistoryasnews.org


LA CRONICA: Our History As News

LA CRONICA is an educational publication that uses a newspaper format to relate Mexican American history from 1835, when the current Southwest was part of northern Mexico, through the Civil Rights Movement of the late 1960s. Each of nine issues centers on a major event in the history of Mexican Americans. In each issue, four pages are in English and four in Spanish. The design and writing styles reflect those of the historical periods. Research was conducted at the Bancroft Collection at the University of California, Berkeley, the Huntington Museum, the libraries at the University of Texas, Austin, the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, the Denver Public Library, the University of Arizon, Tucson, and many historical societies and private collections. LA CRONICA is copyrighted by the Center for the Study of Innovative Education, Inc.

Link: www.ourhistoryasnews.org Pidgebird (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

@Pidgebird: But as we mentioned, we need some kind of published evidence that the other journal is stealing your content. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with photo transfer to Commons

I tried to copy a photo over to the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_of_Tom_Harpur_by_Hugh_Wesley.jpg which you had tagged, but I think I made a mess of it. Can you help? Radath (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Radath: You can use a script that is linked to from the "Copy to commons" box but it's all kinds of fun. Anyway, I reverted your edit and then moved it here. It should be deleted soon from Wikipedia so only the Commons version remains. So we're good. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 09:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Nature of evidence

Thanks for your response. I'm a little perplexed. I'd be grateful if you would spell out the specific nature of the evidence needed to initiate a take-down discussion of the African-American Historical News Journal among your editors.

Thank you.

Pidgebird

Pidgebird (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pidgebird: As DDG said above, The first step you can take is to write an article on the BC, supporting your statements with references (such as reviews in educational or library periodicals), I'll be glad to look at it when you have it ready. ... only published sources will do for that. We need something published, because we just cannot take someone's word that we should delete an article. We're not doubting what you're telling us, but we need more than just your statements here to proceed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If Carlsberg did Cheeseburgers...

Hi there,

Thank you for your assistance in tidying up the image file I recently uploaded to Wikipedia - very much appreciated.

Yours sincerely, 


Richardpeterlyons148 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
@Richardpeterlyons148: Thank you! I need to go have lunch now §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Howdy

I keep seeing you on my watchlist so I'm just stopping by to say hello. I have not been active at BLPN lately so we haven't rubbed shoulders for a while. I trust you are still doing good work there :-) Best, — Keithbob • Talk • 00:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like @Keithbob: Thanks! I still hang out there, yes. Doing some other stuff but that's been my main focus, although I've noticed it's been a bit more active lately (more editors) so it's a bit better than 6 months ago! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Maria_Luisa_Piraquive

Hello, I just want to know why are you saying that the article is poorly referenced? when I reference everything that i wrote with the most important newspaper in my country, could you please explain me that? I spent a lot of time doing that and I think I won't help any more to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.166.142 (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to know why are you saying that the article is poorly referenced? when I reference everything that i wrote with the most important newspaper in my country, could you please explain me that? I spent a lot of time doing that and I think I won't help any more to this page.

I'm talking about this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Luisa_Piraquive

You deleted everything I did!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.166.142 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say the material was poorly referenced, and I didn't "remove everything". Please read my comment in the talk page carefully, and also my comment here. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

BLACK CHRONICLE article & support for Takedown request

Dear Free Range Frog,

In the article below I have tried to provide what you asked for in your last note. In addition to a recap of the creation of the BLACK CHRONICLE, it includes press coverage and ISBN numbers. I have been unable to locate the Library Journal’s coverage of the BLACK CHRONICLE when it was published in 1971 by Holt Rinehart and Winston. In my previous notes to you, I provided copyright information (including the copyright numbers) and a description of the many sources used in creating the publication. All this information would be enough even for a copyright attorney. Regarding the take-down request, most important for you and your colleagues at Wikipedia is that the African-American Historical Journal violates two of Wikipedia’s bedrock principles: Veracity and Copyright Infringement. It falsely claims to be comprised of authentic historical newspapers; and it is a violation of the BLACK CHRONICLE copyright. A simple comparison of the articles on the AAHJ website (www.historicalnewsjournals.com) with those that appear in the BLACK CHRONICLE on www.ourhistoryasnews.org will show them to be exact reproductions of articles that appear in the BLACK CHRONICLE – articles which are not from actual historical newspapers, but which present history using a newspaper format. In my earlier note, I identified several that you can easily compare. By allowing the AAHJ to remain as an entry, Wikipedia is helping to perpetuate a serious distortion of history (the claim that its articles are from actual newspapers) as well as supporting a violation of copyright. There’s really nothing else I can provide.

Here’s the article: THE BLACK CHRONICLE: OUR HISTORY AS NEWS The BLACK CHRONICLE was created in the late 1960s by Robert A. Miller. It uses a newspaper format to relate African-American History. Each of its 14 four-page issues is dated at an important moment in Black history, beginning in 1778 during the Revolutionary War, and ending with the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956. In each issue, a lead article, news stories, features, advertisements and anecdotes, all combine to create a multi-faceted moment in history. Although the design and writing styles reflect those of the historical periods, the articles are original pieces, written by Mr. Miller under the supervision of historians to reflect current historical theory. Research was conducted at the New York Public Library’s Arthur C. Schomburg Collection, Harvard’s Weidner Library, and many private collections. A teacher’s guide and CD’s are also available. An article that appeared in Jet Magazine (Sept. 23, 1971) said: “The newspaper, The Black Chronicle, is Robert Miller’s idea for bringing Negro history to life for Black and white high school students alike by presenting it in a modern newspaper format.” Mr. Miller produced the BLACK CHRONICLE in association with Blackside, Inc., in Roxbury, Massachusetts. In 1971, the BLACK CHRONICLE was published by Holt Rinehart and Winston which distributed it to schools (ISBN-0-03-080119-2). In 1999 the copyright was returned to Mr. Miller. The BLACK CHRONICLE was republished in 2010 by World Chronicles, Inc. (ISBN # 978-0-615-57801-952000). It currently appears on the website: www.ourhistoryasnews.org. More recently, the BLACK CHRONICLE received newspaper coverage in a New York Daily News article of October 6, 2011, by Clem Richardson. The BLACK CHRONICLE articles, he wrote, “are part of thousands of facts and pictures Miller put in ‘Black Chronicles’ a series of 14 educational newspapers he created in the early 1970s as a way to painlessly teach black history in our nation’s schools.” Currently, the BLACK CHRONICLE is being used as a social studies supplement in schools across the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pidgebird (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pidgebird: User:DGG (who is a far more experienced editor than I) previously indicated that we would require published material that supports your case of copyright infringement. At this point I'd like to defer to him to see what it is we can do with what you've provided so far. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

INAL, but we violate copyright when we reprint something that is copyright to someone who has not licensed it to us, not when we report incorrectly on the copyright status of something. And the person responsible would be the original author in the page history of the material,.In principle, complaints like yours on content should go to WP:OTRS, where they will handled by an experienced volunteer. You say you've been there, but I am one of these volunteers and I think I can deal with it here and investigate the situation. There are some key source that I need: A published statements from a reliable source other that your publication that the AAHJ claims are not correct. Have they ever been sued about it? What was the result? Where was the result reported? What I will then do is not remove their claims, but add yours.

With respect to your material, I suggest you add it as an article in your user space, with the title The Black Chronicle: Our History As News. To facilitate matters, I've moved the material from here to start it there for you, as User:Pidgebird/The Black Chronicles: Our History as News. I made some formatting changes--it needs further--It needs adjustment to our format. See WP:CHEATSHEET for the basic coding.and WP:HOW. Let me know on my talk p, when ready and I will take a look at it. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

AAHJ

Dear Free Range Frog, Again, I appreciate your continued responses and advice. I am working on adjusting the BLC article to conform with your format, and will let you know when it is ready. Thanks for that!

As for the AAHJ, I understand the explanation of copyright violation, and that it may not apply in this case. But the Veracity issue is still very much alive. You say you can deal with it using what I’ve already given you, and that you can investigate the situation. As for your request for a published statement, the AAHJ has not yet been sued about their claims because the financial resources to file a suit have not been available. Hopefully they will be in the future.

But to determine the veracity, all you have to do is read the articles on his site to determine that his claim that the AAHJ is “a compilation of actual newspaper articles from 1778 to 1956“ is false. For example, the article about Robert Smalls, a slave who stole a confederate gunboat and delivered to the Union army appears on the AAHJ’s Military page. Not only is it written in a modern style (originally written by me), but it is an exact replica of the copyrighted BLACK CHRONICLE article that appears on the front page of Issue 5, 1862, which you can easily access by going to www.ourhistoryasnews.org and clicking on the 1862 issue. Many other examples are cited in my earlier note to you. Again, AAHJ’s claim that it is presenting historically authentic newspapers is a disservice to Wikipedia, to me, and to all educators and students who are being misled. If, as you propose, you would not remove their claim, but would add mine, here’s what I propose: “The AAHJ is an unauthorized reproduction of the BLACK CHRONICLE (www.ourhistoryasnews.org) in which a newspaper format is used to relate African-American history.” I understand and appreciate your need to be careful about the materials permitted on Wikipedia, but in this case Wikipedia is also being victimized.

Pidgebird

Pidgebird (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Pidgebird: I cannot go off and investigate this, none of us here can. One, we don't have the bandwidth, and second (and more importantly) we cannot engage in original research to support facts in an article. Wikipedia is by definition a tertiary source - we simply repeat what secondary (and in some cases primary) sources say about the topic. You need to work on this draft to create an article about your publication, you need to publish on your website your investigation into the copyright infringement, not us. Once we see what you have, we can begin to think about taking the AAHJ article down, redirecting it, not linking to its website, etc. Not until then. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Free Range Frog,

Thanks again. I understand your explanation. I'll let you know when my draft is ready.

Pidgebird

Pidgebird (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Chronicle edit & questions

Hello Free Range Frog,

Hope you're well. I've done my best to edit the Black Chronicle entry you left on my Pidgebird page. Please let me know if there is more I should do. Two questions:

1. Might I also create an entry for LA CRONICA: Our History as News? (You can see LA CRONICA on the website. It is a sister publication to the Black Chronicle, created with partial funding from the Ford Foundation, and extensive research throughout the Southwest and in Mexico. 2. Can I make an edit on the AAHJ page to say "The AAHJ claims" to be authentic historical newspapers....

Looking forward to your response.

Best,

Pidgebird

Pidgebird (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, because we have (as of now) no tangible proof that the AAHJ is doing anything wrong. Does that make sense? All we have is your word at the moment. I'd rather you leave that article alone, it's been there for a long time so a few more days isn't going to hurt. As of La Cronica, sure, but first finish the other one please. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Glitter Band page

Hello Free Range Frog You deleted some changes that I made to the Glitter Band page. The details that I made are completely factual. John Springate of the band does run an adult website called cp4men.net, which is a gay spanking site. If you would like to take a look, you will see that John Springate appears in many of the sample photos. This is widely known amongst fans of the band and John Springate makes no secret of it. If Wikipedia is meant to be factual, then I see no reason why this edit should not stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadarLove2014 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@RadarLove2014: If you provide some secondary sources that can verify that, and actually make a case for the inclusion of that material, fine. As of now all you have is some claims and a link to a website that is essentially a primary source that we absolutely cannot use to support those types of rather delicate allegations. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

RFA?

Are you still interested in a RFA, considering your active OTRS involvement, you can really use the tools. Thanks Secret account 01:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Secret: Yeah, sure! At least I won't be having to bug you guys all the time :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I always thought you didn't want to become an administrator! Given that you agreed to run, can I serve as co-nom? :) → Call me Hahc21 02:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21: I guess I felt I wouldn't make the cut last year, but I'm a lot more confident now. And of course, I'd be honored §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Cool I'll create the RFA by the weekend. Secret account 02:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
What? Weekend? Nah. I am going to create it today and then we will prepare it to go live this weekend. No need to do everything at last minute. → Call me Hahc21 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, well obviously I've never done this before so I'm off to do some reading. If there's anything I should be doing, let me know! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Your RfA is located here. Well, about RfA, a couple of things: First, it is very likely that it can get nasty (see my recent RfA to take a glimpse of how can it be) but don't be scared. Second, keep in mind that people oppose your candidacy, so don't take it too personal. I know it can be a frustrating week (and it surely might be) but keep your cool. Take a break from the computer whenever and as much as you feel it's needed, and take your time to answer all the questions you will be asked. Voters don't care if you take an hour or a day to answer; they will care if your answer satisfies their expectations, and a rapid response can be advantageous if you get it right, or disastrous if you get it wrong. Sometimes you read the question as to be focused on one thing and it ends up being focused on an entirely unrelated matter. Third, be careful if you decide to do normal editing during your RfA, it can lead to awkward situations like this one. Fourth, remember that you always have your nominators if you need help with anything. Our work is to guide you and, to some extent, be your advocates during your RfA. So, if an oppose vote needs a reply or a clarification, leave it to us (or to any other community member, usually somebody will show up). Finally, if you do not succeed, don't feel sad. I know it's hard but, as I said above, you should not take it too personal. A failed RfA won't diminish all the previous excellent work you've done in the past, and won't diminish all the excellent work you will do in the future. Not that I expect you to fail (quite the opposite, actually) but anything can happen. That said, any questions? :) → Call me Hahc21 03:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, actually I've been going over your RFA since it's one of the one in the main page! Thanks for the advice, truly. So, I accept the nomination, answer the standard questions and then add the link to WP:RFA, or do you or Secret do that? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Take your time to answer the questions while we prepare our statements. I think that transcluding on Sunday night will be desirable, and you can take care of that after everything else is set up :) → Call me Hahc21 04:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I'll be doing my homework until then :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I already created the nomination, just waiting on Hahc, the RFA can go live at any time you wish, even today! Thanks Secret account 16:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, give me some time to get my statement ready. I expect it will be ready today, so you can indeed transclude it anytime you wish after my statement is there. My only suggestion would be to elaborate a bit more on question one. The other two questions look awesome. → Call me Hahc21 16:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21: Elaborate as in "I'm going to work on all these other areas" (which may be true, I just didn't want to make promises!) or "this is more precisely what I'm going to do in the areas I mentioned"? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The latter. Elaborate and expand a bit more in regards as to why did you pick these areas, mentioning previous experience you might have (For example, a good idea would be to mention how constantly you patrol new pages and tag articles and how you feel you could be more helpful by having the tools). You could also add more detailed examples, like I had to do on question 15. I want to avoid all the "Answer to question one is not convincing" oppose votes and the like. I see you have a strong CSD record, so highlight CSD on that question, and then move on to AfD. Secret already provided some examples of your comments at AFD so that will help out. Make the refund mention a separate sentence and elaborate a bit more. Now, about OTRS, see how Mdann52 got an oppose vote because he gave too much weight to OTRS. I also mentioned it on my answer to question one, but only as an "In addition to what I said, OTRS...". Also, why didn't you mention ACC? I see that, like me, you work there. Mention it! :) → Call me Hahc21 16:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll revise that, thanks. I didn't feel it was germane to mention ACC since there is (normally) no need for admin rights related to that, and now that I've gone through a few RFAs it seems like that could be construed as "badge collecting" which, wow, I didn't even know was a thing. As for OTRS, I get your point but then maybe they were objecting because you he just joined, and I've been on there for almost a year now. In any case, I'll reword it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, he had just joined OTRS (not me! I've been there for years!) and then it didn't look good. My statement is ready. SO, now the only thing left is for you to work on question one and we're ready to go. Let me know when you're done and I will transclude if you wish, since I will be around for the next 10 hours or so. → Call me Hahc21 21:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21: Yes, sorry, I was referring to Mdann52! I've edited the answers, let me know if they're looking good. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Just what I was thinking of. Looks like we're good to go. Let me know and I'll transclude whenever you feel ready :) → Call me Hahc21 23:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well if there isn't some kind of timing issue I'd say hit the gas, but I'll leave that to you. I'm ready :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any timing issue. So, I will transclude now. Again, best of luck, and don't take any oppose votes too personal! → Call me Hahc21 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Just saw your RfA, §FreeRangeFrog, and I had an immediate feeling that I wanted to Support you and then tried to remember where we had crossed paths. It was on the Raul Julia-Levy mess which you handled quite responsibility since there were quite polar opinions on this individual's claims. Just another day at OTRS, I guess! Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Liz: Thank you! Yeah, that was a fun one. It's always difficult to balance what the subject or their reps are asking for and our policies. But that worked out well, because I have not heard from them again. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Transcluded Good luck! :) → Call me Hahc21 00:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll see how that goes! Thank you again! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I personally think that you have done a much better nomination statement then Mdann52 managed and are a much better candidate all round - which is reflected in your statement and the nominations. To explain my hardline stance in the other RFA, I viscerally dislike the obvious use of OTRS as a device by hat-collectors to get the tools but your RFA is clearly not in that category. I'm very much in the once bitten twice shy school and having been conned over a previous RFA where OTRS was used to cover up a problemetic previous incarnation I can't support your candadicy at this time. Otherwise, I would have been delighted to support you as I have seen you around and you are a clueful and sensible user. I'm sure you will pass with flying colours and I will be watching the nomination with interest hoping that you get through. Good luck. Spartaz Humbug! 00:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Spartaz: Thank you for your kind words, and the explanation. I had a feeling it was something like that. Obviously the "mop" is not required at all to be able to function in OTRS, but it definitely makes it easier in some cases. The vast majority of tickets require no special privileges at all here or in any other project, except perhaps autoconfirmed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing قرية قطرس, FreeRangeFrog.

Unfortunately OccultZone has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Why you reviewed it? "Village albatros" is in Italy, not even Libya!

To reply, leave a comment on OccultZone's talk page.

@OccultZone: I'm sure you're right, but what I did was to list the article at WP:PNT, which is where the vast majority of new articles in languages other than English must be reported. The review flag was set automatically because of that. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
No problem. OccultZone (Talk) 10:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent Vandalisms

Hello, this is Lord Laitinen. I just wanted to thank you for reverting that vandalism on my user page. It was vandalized again just one minute after I logged on today, and I took care of it. I have asked RHaworth to semi-protect my page, since two vandalisms have already taken place. I hereby award you the Random Acts of Kindess Barnstar! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Laitinen (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Brenda Dickson Wikipedia - A Living Person

Dear Frog,

I have spoken with Wikipedia on the living person's biography. This biography is true and correct, backed up by Brenda Dickson herself, as well as her bios on her website and on IDBM. It is also backed up by "My True Hidden Hollywood Story" which is on sale now in Barnes and Nobnle bookstores. Miss Dickson is a best-selling author and you fail to have her book mentioned on Wikipedia?!

She also has spent a good deal of time on stagfe with top producers, directors and actors. You failed to mention her accomplished stage credits at all in this current biography. You also fail to mentiuon that her "Welcome to my Home" garnered 3 million viewers and it was also take down by the Bells of Sony Pictures. All of this data is in her book and can be referenced by Michael Morrison who put it on the air in 2009. After it's huge success it was taken down. We have added the true and correct bio that spans Miss Dickson's career as an author, as a successful stage performer, as a film maker and her successful movie "Deathmaster" isn't even mentioned in this bio which is now for sale on the internet. What a hack job!

We have correct these things and we have changed the references to b ack up everything. Please do not take this down. Monday morning I will be contacting my attorney, Eugene Moore is you should continue to put up things that are untrue that have nothing to do with my career or my accomplishments of work. I don't think it is mandatory for me to appear in Wikipedia if you continue to do these things.

We are putting up a picture owned by Brenda Dickson, taken by Glen Liption, her photographer, at this year's Ocrar party. The supression on this page is extremely strange and one has to wonder who is behind it. To leave out my book currently for sale is rediculous.

Larry Link Administrative Assistant to Brenda Dickson

Brenda Dickson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llinkster (talk • contribs) 04:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WATC Logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WATC 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. Corkythehornetfan(talk) 21:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz

Thanks for the response, and thanks too for the rapid work — having dealt mostly with Permissions (being the person requesting permission), I've learned to expect a few days' wait, so I'm impressed that you handled this far faster. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Not a problem, I was logged in closing tickets when that one arrived, so we got it done quickly. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a template we can place on his userpage, analogous to {{PermissionOTRS}} for images? I'm just afraid that your ticket link will get lost if it's only on the talk page. I didn't see anything in Category:OTRS templates that could be used to say basically "Ticket X confirms that this user is who he says he is". Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, no. I don't think there's anything like that. I'm not sure how that would work though, we'd have to force people to keep that in their userpage (or talk) permanently... but I agree it's a rather obvious hole in the process. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
What if...I just add your ticket link to the userpage with an explanatory edit summary, and then self-revert? Barring the deletion of the userpage, there wouldn't be any way for the ticket number to get lost. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That sounds good. I'm actually working on a template now, but it will be a bit before I have consensus that it's appropriate and it makes sense to use it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: good morning, I have now finished the paragraph I suggest be included as next to last in the Professional life section (or under the sub-section as noted on my talk page, if such sub-divisioning is agreed). I have also clarified that this paragraph is for the biography not a rationale for inclusion anywhere else. Please feel free to review and comment, and if appropriate, include in the article. Thanks. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: now with your new post, you can go and review my revisions with a sharper pen -- just don't poke me with it! Kindly have a look at my Sandbox too to see how I proposed it might fit all together. Thanks, and congratulations again. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mansoor Ijaz: Thank you! I'll take a look. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: I found a few secondary sources to look through. May I ask you to have a look at the format I laid out for the additional paragraphs, if approved, in my Sandbox? Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Rock n Roll. I'm good with what we have in the Sandbox. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Nyttend left some nice comments on your work at my talk page. I made a request there for some small tweaks. Please have a look. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: May I ask one last favor of you today? As I did a close scan of the article and fixed a bunch of minor issues (see history for those), I found one place where a clarification addition is needed and feel that should be done by an Administrator. At the end of Paragraph 1 in the Kashmir sub-section, please can we add to existing text "Musharraf reluctantly agreed to back the ceasefire plan.[52]" as follows: "Musharraf reluctantly agreed to back the ceasefire plan, despite opposition from hardliners in the ranks of Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence services.[52]"

This is an important clarification that justified his reticence at the time. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: Done! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Good morning. I found a few more subject articles that I think need significant re-works -- sort of laying out a project book for our potential ongoing collaborations. Timur Kulibayev needs a significant re-write. His business life section reads like a resume rather than a biographical sketch adhering to WP:NPOV. I know something about the subject, so I will with your consent start taking a crack at how to re-work and put that article in a proper perspective. Question: is there a prohibition from me having a second user account that does not utilize my name? Am I required to disclose that to the Admins? If so, process? The point being that when I edit or am involved with any article where I am personally concerned, I want to do those edits in my name for the sake of transparency. But some of the other articles I wish to contribute to have subject matter or individual persons who are tough to deal with if perceptions are raised that their preferred way of being presented in the Wiki community portals is not to their liking. Can you suggest how we should do this? The subject matter I am working on this weekend is a perfect example of the problem I describe. Thanks for a short reply -- by the way, I did a minor fix on one of the reference links where the web link had been inadvertently omitted. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mansoor Ijaz: A conflict of interest is that, regardless of which account you're using. If you have a conflict of interest (rather than just knowledge) about a topic, you probably shouldn't be editing it in a way that could be contentious. For example, if you hadn't gone through us to update your own bio. Now, creating another account would be fine, but you'd have to abandon your current one, because using an account to avoid "giving the wrong impression" is not allowed under the guidelines for alternate accounts. Unfortunately as you've chosen your real name I'd agree there are situations where your edits might seem problematic or COI-ish even when that's not the case. I'll leave it up to you - you can abandon this account (and we can block it as well), request a rename or maintain the status quo. In any event, if there's a COI problem that doesn't go away, since it applies to the person rather than to the account. I'd say if you don't have a COI there, edit away. But again, that's up to you. You are clearly a subject matter expert here and we'd certainly appreciate your contributions to any topics beyond your own bio. COI can be managed, but we need to be transparent about it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Understood. I wasn't thinking at all about COI problems. I was thinking more about the safety of bringing balance to an article where the subject has contentious issues -- well-sourced and covered by secondary issues -- out when those are not part of the public airing of that person's biographical sketch as it exists now in the Encyclopedia. That's the only reason I was thinking about a name other than my own. I began this account I use now for precisely the reason that if there was ever a potential COI, it would be immediately visible for all to determine whether I had acted within the rules. But in the Kulibayev article, I have no personal connection but do know for example that he was once charged with money laundering in Switzerland and then the case was closed last December according to publicly available sources. None of that appears in his BLP but probably merits that mention in my proposed edits. Wonder how they would react in his camp to that appearing.... and knowing that I made that change..............! That's what I'm speaking about if it makes any sense to you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mansoor Ijaz: Yes, I understand. Well, here I suppose it's a question of where the "surprise" comes from. If it's the why of the edit then I guess we have a problem, but then that would mean you have a COI to begin with. If it's the who then it's no big deal, you can edit Wikipedia just as anyone in the planet can. I'll leave it up to you to decide which one it is. If it makes you more comfortable, you can always create a change request in the talk page, although we don't have a request type that isn't "the page is protected and I can't edit it" or "I have a conflict of interest". Also this is a biography, so it's important to be extra careful with wording, neutrality and sourcing. But seeing your previous edits, even in the context of your own bio, I think you'll be fine there. As always, if you are unsure, just ask. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(unindenting) @FreeRangeFrog: I used Kulibayev as an example of one of the areas of interest I have -- what is happening with those in close proximity to leaders of Russo-centric nations and what they are presently doing in the midst of the Ukrainian crisis. So my request for clarification is definitely on the basis of who and not why. I will make some edits and see how you and other editors read them and see how it goes. Maybe someone monitoring the pages for those camps will "raise hell" or maybe they just don't care given who they are and where they stand in the power structures of their countries.

On a separate matter, I'm about to load up the re-write on the other section at my Sandbox. I would ask that you read it and then tell me which of the statements you see need sourcing and briefly for what reason. I will then load the necessary support in as well. It's easier to edit this way instead of me assuming what you or another editor may wish to see re-done. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mansoor Ijaz: Sounds good on the edits. Ping me when you're done with the sandbox, although I might not get around to it until (my) Monday. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Done! --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog:,@Nyttend:
Good afternoon to both of you, I hope you both enjoyed a nice weekend and that Nyttend got the photos hoped for. I write to both of you because you've both assisted in the re-write and re-development of the encyclopedic entry. And I wanted to raise your attention to the fact that there is one area of my life that has not yet been covered by the article, an area which has played a critical role in my grounding and view of the world throughout my professional career.
My charitable work has been part of my way of life since I was a teenager, but became more prominent and visible as I was able to put larger amounts of my private wealth behind the initiatives I care most for. I give a lot of my net income each year to charitable causes on grounds that I never want to die with too much money in my pocket.
Do you see this as a fair topic to add a paragraph or two -- properly sourced of course -- at the end of the "Professional life" section? We could for example name a new sub-section that could be entitled "Charitable work" and would pull down the memberships and academic pursuits stuff from the previous sub-section on "Political life" into it as well. If you feel it appropriate, I can craft a few paragraphs and provide sourcing and leave it in my mailbox after FRF is done with the current paragraphs left there for his review. Thank you. Have a good week of Wiki-editing.... --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mansoor Ijaz: I don't see a problem at all - as before, if you write it and source it either Nyttend or I can take a look. If you have been active in that area then there's no reason the information couldn't be in your bio. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Please see my Sandbox for comments on both subjects. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Good morning Sir, I left some comments at the Sandbox on the Memogate article. Need your inputs before I bring in the references. I also have a question about my talk page at the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mansoor_Ijaz. Is it possible to go in and clean up all the various tags and Categories -- seems like that was all done ages ago when the article was first created and much of it doesn't apply anymore. I understand the "Connected Contributor" tag of course, but the others seem not relevant and a bunch of the categories are not either -- or do I misunderstand something? Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Good afternoon, I have now added the relevant references -- annotating virtually every sentence, as each has important differential data from the others. Hope this re-write is editorially sound now. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:Good evening, Sir. Wondering if you've forgotten about our little project left in my Sandbox? --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Good morning, Sir. I wanted to leave here the same comment I have just left for Nyttend on your edit of the Haqqani article. I'm pleased that you were able to use my re-write as the basis of a change there. I would like to point out to you the same as I did with Nyttend for your consideration.
COMMENT left on Nyttend Talk Page: May I ask also that you take a look at the changes FreeRangeFrog and I made to the Memogate section of article Husain Haqqani? I think the quote from The Wall Street Journal in the final paragraph of that section is excessively and too extensively quoted. It should either be cut, or it should go into the section created by Frog below. I understand and think it is certainly fair to balance the heavy allegation of treason with whatever those who originally wrote this section wanted to say in favor of Haqqani, so the added "Statements..." section is a good way to do it. But there is too much emphasis on one editorial from one newspaper to justify an entire paragraph length quote. My thoughts on the subject -- over to you and Frog.--Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Nyttend's comments make clear the rationale that you also probably used on keeping in the media reaction in whatever form you chose. I have two remaining suggestions for the Haqqani article -- first, the Memogate saga should be mentioned in the opening Lede where it says he resigned on such and such date. It is as much a part of defining who he is as it has been in defining who I am in encyclopedic terms. Second, I suggest you make the Memogate heading Memogate or Memogate controversy and make it a separate section of the article with the media comments a sub-section of Memogate. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Mansoor Ijaz: That makes sense, done. A regular from the COI noticeboard is refactoring the article a bit, we'll see how that goes. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Appreciate your help on the Haqqani article. I was reading some bios of big hedge-fund manager colleagues of mine today and found a bunch of categories that belong in my article as well. I thought I would lay those out here for you and ask that you incorporate them into my article when you have time.
  • {{American financiers}}
  • {{American investors}}
  • {{American financial company founders}}
  • {{Businesspeople from New York}}
  • {{Businesspeople from Virginia}}
  • {{Stock and commodity market managers}}
On a separate note, would like to get your feedback on my re-work of the Timothy M. Carney article -- my first major effort and researching and expanding an article. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mansoor Ijaz: Categories done, will look at your draft in detail tomorrow. It's looking good, and I noticed you also asked for comments in the COI noticeboard, excellent! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: learned from the best, pal.....! --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

New sub-section on Pakistan and new section on Opinions

@FreeRangeFrog: Good evening, Sir. Hope all is well in Phoenix. Happy Easter! As I have been working on re-development of articles Timothy M. Carney and Robin Raphel, I ran across a number of books that had actively quoted from my op-ed pieces with Jim Woolsey, Gen. Abrahamson, Gen. Jones, etc. I also found a lot of material related to my various interventions in Pakistani politics which are not presently covered in the article. Are you up for a work through edit with me if I prepare a draft sub-section with references for your review? And can we add a section of "Opinions" that allows us to bring in those elements where op-eds with my colleagues that are quoted in context from books could be put in at the bottom of the article? Thanks for a reply. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

needs more cowbell. and frogs.
More amphibians - more moist tools!

Hi FreeRangeFrog, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth a read and the new admin school is available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment before applying them for main use. Good luck with your adminship! Acalamari 23:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Acalamari: Thank you! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Congratulations, Frog. As I expected, you had an almost clean landslidey request for adminship, unlike those from your noms ;) Anyways, it was an honor to serve as your nominator, and I am sure you will make a strong and fine admin. Cheers! → Call me Hahc21 23:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hahc21: I am honestly surprised and more than a little humbled by how that went, especially after reading through all those contentious RFAs! Thank both you and Secret for the confidence and nomination! And now I'm going to have that t-shirt printed and wear it around the house §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Now that made me laugh. Not a bad idea, though my dogs are going to believe I finally lost my head → Call me Hahc21 00:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, almast a clean sweep. Pity about the one oppose, don't croak too much about it ;-).  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ronhjones: Thank you! Yeah well, they did have a point there after all. I'm surprised (and relieved) it wasn't a bigger deal. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on your RFA! ///EuroCarGT 00:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@TParis:, @EuroCarGT: Thank you, and for your support! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick and Northern Antarctica: Thanks bunches! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@JMHamo: Thanks for that, and your support in the RFA as well. Much appreciated. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Hah! Can't believe there was already a section for amphibians :D Thanks! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
So you are the third on the Frog Cabal. Nice, I've heard they make their reunions on the leaf ;) → Call me Hahc21 04:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
You didn't know? We have a secret handshake and everything §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Congatulations on WP:100! Sorry I didn't get to have a real look and a vote, but it looks as if there was no need anyway! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 03:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mz7 and Trevj: Much appreciated! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Sam Sailor and Hawkeye7: Thanks!! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 08:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@Epicgenius, The Herald, and Ponyo: Thank you! And yeah, I'm off to look at that backlog :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
@NintendoFan: Thank you, and for your !vote of support as well. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Thank you, and thanks for your support as well! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Liz: Thank you Liz! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@HMSSolent: Nevertheless much appreciated :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Denace

Why was the Denace page deleted? It was not even complete. The page is most defiantly of importance as he is a youtuber and rap artist with a new upcoming album aswell as being a finalist on the greek x-factor!

@Stevenc1652: New articles must assert a measure of importance. If you need time to work on the article, try Draft:Denace instead. Also see WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Also: if you are linked to Denace (as Google says is likely), you should instead go to WP:AFC. See WP:AUTO. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
And WP:COI. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Parenti

Nasty one. I advised Ticket:2014032910004124 to steer clear of Wikipedia for now. Do you think user:NovOctSept is the subject? The article has been abused for promotion more than once int he past, by the looks of it. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I missed all that stuff after I replied. Still, unverified claims and offer to support them with primary sources... not our fight. And yeah, that's the subject or someone associated. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Associative thinking

Hello FreeRangeFrog. My apologies for not identifying the page creator correctly before tagging for CSD. My sincere apologies. Optakeover(Talk) 18:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Optakeover: No problem. The IP looks like they're here to "tell it like it is", if they become more disruptive I'd recommend reporting them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FreeRangeFrog. You have new messages at Loriendrew's talk page.
Message added 22:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IP 173.79.251.253

His block for edit was at Jason Russell ended on 1 April. At 13:09 1 April [1] with the helpful edit summary of Restoring consensus text that was BLANKED by user Collect in act of vandalism 6-30-12.) I fear he does not understand WP:EW at all, and is a tad unrepentant. [2] shows his opinion: :I will refrain. Especially given the history of that page... . it is clear that Collect has managed to manipulate the situation to get multiple users banned for simply insisting that a naked guy was naked. I am a new editor and his actions are clearly abusive. Really need some kind of admin to step in here and look at the situation.173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC) in response to Darkness Shines note that his edit was clearly edit war at this point. (As for me "getting multiple users banned" I know not what the heck he is referring to here at all!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Yeah, unfortunately they came back with a vengeance. I didn't want to spend more time explaining that BLP/N is not dispute resolution, but oh well. There's a thread there, hopefully there will be some consensus. I'll give them that one revert for the time being. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

composer Maurice Verheul

Dear FRF,


You deleted a my starting page of the composer Maurice Verheul who has composed more 700 works. Tel me what must I do to put an article of him on wiki


Hope to hear,


Rvanbergen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvanbergen (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Rvanbergen: Articles must assert a credible measure of importance to avoid being deleted. If you feel the subject meets the notability guidelines, I'd suggest using Draft:Maurice Verheul to work on it without anyone getting in the way. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Brendan Eich

Thank you for your comment on the Talk page for Brendan Eich. I am concerned that one editor seems to be risking an edit war for political reasons, and if you have time I would appreciate any further attention you might spare.TVC 15 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@TVC 15: I left a comment on the article's talk page regarding Joe's edits. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reformed Churches in Switzerland

Please create them as drafts so I could work on them talk

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Master Mena

I was on the point of deleting this when I spotted that you'd restored it. The only indication I had was on the Delete page itself, which patrollers wouldn't see. Isn't there some way of marking restored pages like this? Or perhaps if the restoration included the CSD tag, and this was manually removed after restoration with an edit summary, then this would give a new edit and an entry in the history which would alert the patroller. If I'm restoring something on request, I restore it complete then detag (and usually move it into user space as this is personal request not REFUND). Peridon (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Peridon: That was my bad actually, I should be restoring them completely, tag and all, but this one for some reason I restored up to before the original G13 tag was placed. This is what I do with all of them - not sure what I was smoking when I did that one. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Smoking is bad for your cigarettes. It stunts their growth. Peridon (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what I keep telling them! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

WallarooMedia

I was looking at the unblock request at User talk:WallarooMedia and wondered if I am missing something. There's a username policy violation, but I don't see any evidence of promotional editing and nothing in the deleted contributions. In fact, the user wrote a fairly decent first article without any refspam.

Based on his username change request, he appears to be the founder and CEO of his company. But I see no violation other than the username.

I'm inclined to assume you intended a usernameblock rather than spamusernameblock, and unblock him so he can change his username.

Or am I missing something? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Amatulic: That one should have been the simple username block, yes. I did google the name and I realized it's a "Utah SEO Company - Wallaroo Media - Digital Marketing". I don't know if they have a COI or not, and whether they were paid to write this but it seems likely. Regardless, you are correct in that their contributions could not be considered strictly spamming at this point. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 22:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Rather than unblock just yet, I left a question on his talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thom Loverro

Can someone please explain to me what I'm doing wrong.

Everything I said about him was factually accurate and properly sourced. He does refer to the person in question by the nickname in question, in a pejorative manner.

He did question the legitimacy of the person's academic accomplishments, I sourced it, I can tell you the exact line if you want.

If you read a comment page under any of his articles on this subject, you'll see that I'm not the only one that finds these things noteworthy.

I don't understand why a factually accurate and sourced observation about his work, on a subject that many find noteworthy, would not be allowed here.


````APZ982

@APZ982: It was made exceedingly clear the last time. You are taking what the subject writes, and introducing your own commentary and point of view into it. That is not acceptable. If you find a reliable secondary source (meaning someone other than yourself) that has actually published those claims, then you may possibly be allowed to add them, assuming they don't introduce other problems. See WP:OR and WP:NPOV. And please sign your contributions like this. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, it was never made clear the first time. The first time, I was told it was taken down because it was defamatory, despite the fact that its all 100% factual and sourced. No one ever took any time to explain anything to me beyond that.

I have no idea where you think my commentary is, maybe if you had bothered clicking the sources you'd have realized everything I said came straight from his own words. I was making zero commentary.

So, even though its factual, sourced, and noticed by thousands of others online, its not worthy of this site? But, if one media person wrote about it, it would be?

I had no idea the purpose of this site was to regurgitate media reports. It seems to me if thats the standard, its pretty difficult to ever write anything about anyone in the media. I don't see the media writing about Loverro's disgusting disregard of young African American athletes, but thousands of people online notice.

APZ982 (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)APZ892

Let me put it to you as simply as possible. In the context of Wikipedia, what you think about this person is irrelevant. In Wikipedia, negative material on living people must come from other notable people and media. So far you have not provided that, only your personal opinion about his own articles. Again, see WP:OR and WP:RS. Perhaps you missed the thread in the administrators' noticeboard, or maybe you were too busy edit warring to understand what the problem is. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I never said I wanted to put MY opinion anywhere. I stated basic facts about his writing and sourced the facts. My opinion was not part of my post that was removed and that I was warned for at all.

I wrote a few lines of basic facts and 3 different sources.

I'd like someone to tell me what I did wrong based on something that I actually wrote on that page. APZ982 (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)APZ982

You want a second opinion? Fair enough. Go here and ask away. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

04 April 2014

Dear Free Range Frog,

Just a note to let you know I have been traveling, and will complete my BLACK CHRONICLE entry when I return, after April 13th. Thanks for your patience.

Pidgebird

Pidgebird (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

CSDH

Hi FreeRangeFrog, and congratulations on your recent RfA by the way. I noticed you (beat me to it by the way) have been cleaning out the CSD categories. Might I suggest you load the CSD Helper script? It is quite helpful for declining and changing rationale (and notifying the tagger), as well as conversion to PROD. There are a couple other useful ones out there you, in particular for admins, that you may wish to have a look at. Cheers, and happy Adminning. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: I just added it to my monobook.js and I'm checking it out. Thank you! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome! I have a few in my common.js that you may find useful, there is one that strikes out usernames of blocked users whenever they are linked (for easy identification), close AfD is quite nice. Feel free to check them out. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kelapstick: Like OMG, the AFD one is a freakin' dream! I'll look at all the other ones as well, thanks!! §FreeRangeFrogcroak

Why did you delete my Human Kitten page?

Claiming it doesn't have significance could be done to any article about a musician/artist. What makes this page any different than any other page of marginally popular artists/bands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMilkman12345 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@TheMilkman12345: Articles must assert a minimal measure of credible importance. And beyond that they must meet the relevant notability guidelines. Your article simply claimed this artist exists. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Understandable. I wasn't aware of the specific guidelines. Is there any way for me to retrieve the deleted page, as to have the code stored for the possible future creation of said page (of course with more references attributed). Let me know. User talk:TheMilkman12345
@TheMilkman12345: I've restored it to the Draft namespace here: Draft:Human Kitten. You're free to work on it as much as you want, but if you move it back to the article space, make sure it meets the inclusion guidelines. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for rollback

On the article Neck_Deep, there is a slew of IP editors vandalizing and adding sexual innuendos. Since they are doing it in mass, it's nearly impossible to remove the offending content. Would you mind reverting to revision 603031074 (before all the vandalism) to better ward it off? Thanks. (I've already requested page protection. Nonetheless, it's frustrating as there are multiple IPs doing it.) Ging287 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ging287: Protected. I didn't rollback because the revision you mention has some cite errors, I assume the article is short enough that it can be fixed without reverting. Protected for one week. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. ^^ Ging287 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Husain Haqqani

We were both editing at the same time and I don't know if I was causing edit-conflicts, so wanted to let you know I was done. I may have trimmed too much, but there was a ton of unsourced/poorly-sourced stuff, UNDUE emphasis on a controversy that has its own separate article, and a lot of content about individual statements made by the article subjects (long quotes, etc.). CorporateM (Talk) 03:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: Good morning there in Phoenix. We have sunshine and a nice Spring day here in Zurich. I noticed some fairly major editing by CorporateM, some of it while you were also making changes, on the Haqqani article. The Memogate section, as edited by CorporateM, while trimmer, is now inaccurate -- most likely due simply to not knowing the proper timeline. As best as I could, I have reworked using the same language, but fixed the timeline problem. Kindly review and fix if appropriate. Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

CURRENT VERSION

In 2011, American businessman Mansoor Ijaz said Haqqani asked him to deliver a secret memo to US Admiral Mike Mullen asking for military support to prevent a military takeover in Pakistan. Ijaz also claimed that after the contents of the memo were released, Haqqani orchestrated denials regarding the existence of the memo from involved parties.[1][2] Haqqani denied the accusations.[3] On 30 December 2011, the Pakistan Supreme Court granted a motion by Pakistan's opposition leader at the time, Mian Nawaz Sharif, for an investigation into the memo by a judicial commission.[4] In June 2012, the Judicial Commission released a report concluding that the memorandum was authentic and that Haqqani was its "originator and architect".[5]: 119  The justices further found that Haqqani had undermined the country's security and that Haqqani misled Ijaz to believe the memorandum had the Pakistani president's approval.[6] Haqqani said the Commission's report was one-sided and defended his patriotism.[7]

Haqqani was not allowed to leave the country[8] and sought refuge in the presidential palace and later the Prime Minister's residence for nearly two months, citing threats to his life by extremist groups who accused him of treason.[9] Judicial Commission hearings were conducted eventually from London by remote video link and Haqqani was given travel permissions, but refused to return to Pakistan for future court hearings due to threats to his life.[10] He tendered his resignation to Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani after being summoned back to Islamabad to explain his alleged role in the affair and his prior dealings and relationship with Ijaz.[3] He has thus far refused to return to Pakistan under his still standing commitment with the Supreme Court to face the Commission's findings.[11] He continues to maintain his innocence.[12]

An article in the Wall Street Journal said "it says something about Pakistani politics that its most capable diplomat has been cashiered for attempting to uphold civilian and constitutional rule against a military that has repeatedly subverted it."[13]


SUGGESTED REVISION

In 2011, American businessman Mansoor Ijaz said Haqqani asked him to deliver a secret memorandum to Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, asking for military support to prevent a military takeover in Pakistan. Ijaz also claimed that after the contents of the memo were released, Haqqani orchestrated denials regarding the memo's existence from the involved parties.[14][15] Haqqani denied the accusations[3] and tendered his resignation to Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani after being summoned back to Islamabad to explain his alleged role in the affair and his relationship with Ijaz.[3] On 30 December 2011, the Pakistan Supreme Court granted a motion by Pakistan's opposition leader at the time, Mian Nawaz Sharif, for an investigation into the memorandum by a judicial commission.[16] Haqqani was not allowed to leave the country[17] and sought refuge in the presidential palace and later the Prime Minister's residence for nearly two months, citing threats to his life by extremist groups who accused him of treason.[18] Judicial Commission hearings were conducted, eventually from London by remote video link, and Haqqani was given travel permissions to attend. He refused to return to Pakistan for future court hearings, citing threats.[19]

In June 2012, the Judicial Commission released a report concluding that the memorandum was authentic and that Haqqani was its "originator and architect".[5]: 119  The justices further found that Haqqani had undermined the country's security and that Haqqani misled Ijaz to believe the memorandum had the Pakistani president's approval.[20] Haqqani said the Commission's report was one-sided and defended his patriotism.[21] He has thus far refused to return to Pakistan under his still standing commitment with the Supreme Court to face the Commission's findings.[22] He continues to maintain his innocence.[23]

An article in the Wall Street Journal said "it says something about Pakistani politics that its most capable diplomat has been cashiered for attempting to uphold civilian and constitutional rule against a military that has repeatedly subverted it."[24]


@Mansoor Ijaz: I agree the second version is better, and I replaced it. @CorporateM: I was taking my time to reply to you because I needed to look in detail at the material you trimmed and I hadn't had time, but here it is pretty much. Thoughts? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I responded on the article Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 21:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: Good evening. Couple of things:
  • CorporateM and I worked through to an acceptable version of the Haqqani Memogate section. CorporateM is a good editor -- has a keen sense for consolidation and extracting essential details of a particular section and reducing it to summary form.
  • When you review Timothy M. Carney, would you have a look at my talk page [3] and see if it is appropriate to add the optional paragraph into the U.S. Ambassador to Sudan sub-section? I felt it was highly relevant material because it talks about the role I had played together with Carney, and the findings that we brought out in the Outlook opinion that dealt with whether bin Laden's extradition had been indeed discussed and negotiated in those early 1996 secret meetings. But as I am a subject and originally am suggesting this paragraph for incorporation, it is not appropriate for me to decide the issue.
  • On the talk page of main article Mansoor Ijaz, there is a lot of superfluous (or at least seems to me superfluous) categories at the bottom of the page that cannot be altered by normal editors or users. A number of those seem irrelevant now, or dated. These were probably put there at the time the article was originally created. Could you review those and see which should be deleted?
Thanks, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mansoor Ijaz: The paragraph just feels like a bit of name dropping (I'm sure that wasn't your intention), let me see if I can make it a bit more neutral and weave it into the rest of the article. Regarding the categories in the talk page, those are just used for project classification. They are inserted by the banners at the top. Eventually someone that works with, say the Pakistan project, will be around to asses the article. Some of those are probably outdated in any case, I'll take a look. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Joseph Culp

I wish you'd given me some time to review the speedy deletion. You objected to content that wasn't well paraphrased from one webpage -- I think we're talking two sentences. Yet this was just one section in the article about Joseph Culp -- the rest was original material written about the notable actor and director. You could have just deleted that one section, but you went ahead and deleted the whole page. That is just extreme and rash. Plus I don't have a copy of the rest of the page to re-edit, I'd have to start from scratch. Is there any way to salvage the rest of the page? How do you defend your actions?TBliss (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@TBliss: There is no "time" to review copyright violations and I don't have to defend my actions. They're deleted on sight and without any compunction whatsoever. It doesn't matter if it was one paragraph, considering there were a grand total of two. And I won't give you a copy of the material, because, well, it's a copyright violation. If you wish to recreate this article you're going to have to do it without pasting from other websites. Also, please ensure the subject meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
So you won't give me a copy of the material to work from even though most of it wasn't in copyright violation. You're above reproach, it sounds like. What would Wikipedia do without you? It's people like you that make this place inhospitable for most earnest would-be participants.TBliss (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if I give you the contents or not, since you copied most of them from a website. And if you can't paraphrase successfully from a source and you are thus exposing Wikipedia to takedown requests and all sorts of nasty unnecessary things, then quite frankly we'd rather not have you as a contributor. That said, if there is anything else you need help with, let me know. I do like to help people (because for example, two sections above this you can see how I restored a deleted article for someone) but copyright violations are something we cannot and will not tolerate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, actually it does matter and you can restore the page and let me rectify it or send me a copy of it so I can fix what needs to be paraphrased. I've created several pages and edited many more, and just because I forgot what was original copy and what was paraphrased in my notes doesn't mean the work I do isn't worthwhile here, and can't be improved without being made into an outcast by someone like you, thank you very much.TBliss (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel you've been "made an outcast", but there is no way I'm restoring the article or otherwise providing you with material that is a copyright infringement. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ahem: "we'd rather not have you as a contributor" - Dude, you know that your antagonistic manner is totally unnecessary, and it would be easy to send me the first half of the page. You're clearly on a power trip, as many comments evidence!TBliss (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so you know which part of the article was a copyvio. Astounding. Tell you what, go here and see if someone is willing to do it for you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Uh... you told me which section it was. Good luck with that sarcasm.TBliss (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No I didn't, but hey. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bits

I see you gave yourself accountcreator, autoreviewer, rollbacker. Those are automatic with sysop bit, no need for them separately. The admin bit also gives you IP-block exemption automatically. Some, like abusefilter, must be added manually, but not the basics. I didn't mess with them but your summary looked like you might have known. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I guess I was confused, I'm missing the rollback link in the watchlist and histories. I guessed that's supposed to be implicit for the sysop role, but I was trying to figure out if that would fix it. It didn't :\ I hope I didn't breach some etiquette thing...? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, reviewing pending changes does work... hmmm. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. And if you have an alt account, it is fine to give IP exempt and rollback and such. I was just providing info is all. Make sure you have Twinkle installed in your settings, maybe something changed when you got the bit, and they have been screwing with the CSS lately. But the sysop bit auto has those. Take a look at my User:Dennis Brown/common.js (works with all skins if you use common.*). The two that I think all admin would want is NuclearWarfare's and Mastcells. Very cool, strikes through the names of all currently blocked persons anywhere you see their linked names, and MastCell's is how I saw your rights. When you go to any users page, under their name, it tells you which bits they already have. Both are major time savers when dealing with editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, just added them! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, I'm here any time you have a question. Can't promise I have the right answer, but I'm here ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Thank you, very much appreciated. By the way, I figured out why I'm not seeing rollback links. I am banging my head on a trout as we speak §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that you have more buttons, you have extra opportunity to make mistakes, like the rest of us. It took me a couple of months to get used to all the new do-clickys. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I know the feeling. Once I saw how easy it would be to mess something up, I created my mobile sock account... Feel free to ping me too if you have any questions FRF, not that I am an expert by any means :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kelapstick: Will do, many thanks! §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Fancyber

Please restore this important topic come from in the philippines: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fancyber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.18.234 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I went and took a look at that article. It appears to have been deleted for good reason, for both notability concerns and being more of an advertisement than an article. We don't have articles on every company, only those that can pass the criteria at WP:CORP. That company does not at this time. Until it is talked about in multiple reliable sources (such as mainstream newspapers, magazines, etc.), I don't see it being restored. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick Question.

Is there anyway to semi-protect some of my pages in my own user space such as User:TheMesquito/Button , User:TheMesquito/Userbox , and User talk:TheMesquito/Editnotice ? I revert vandalism and I would rather not have an IP user with ill will mess with stuff that is not my talk page or userpage. Thanks, TheMesquito (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@TheMesquito: User pages can be protected by simple request of the account owner, yes. Which pages, just those three? And simple autoconfirmed protection? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, It would be nice to have a bit of protection on those pages. Thanks, TheMesquito (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
@TheMesquito: No problem, you're all set. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Flippin' Burgers

Hi, you recently declined my speedy deletion request on said page. That article is a prime example of useless, non-notable fluff that cites nothing but the cartoon itself. Please advise. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Chunk5Darth: You might be right. I might even agree with you. But the CSD criteria is as narrow as it is on purpose, and the one you used was not appropriate at all. If you're tagging articles you need to understand what is eligible under which criteria and what isn't - when in doubt, use PROD or AFD instead. A11 is for things like "SpaceBoomerangPong is a game played by my cousin Ricky", "NoTouchToes is a word used to describe people who can't touch their toes" and so on. I used to do the same thing when I started out, "this is useless and why would we want to keep it" but eventually I understood that CSD is the way it is for a purpose. Just follow the criteria to the letter. There's very little room for interpretation when it comes to CSD. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • For what it is worth, I often find someone tagging something wrong, but I call it a simple mistake and delete it under the proper criteria. Less bureaucratic that way, pretty common practice. Not sure if that qualifies as A7 or not, but that might have been one option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I do that too, and I know a lot of admins do that as well. Or sometimes I'll pick a better applicable criteria that the one chosen by the tagger, or add one. In fact that was one of the things that helped me understand CSD more! But in this case however A11 was not correct and there was no appropriate criteria. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there was no appropriate criteria, so I went for the closest I could find. I still believe it should have been deleted a long time ago. You're the admin here, you're obviously more equipped with knowledge of the system and how to get it done, and I'm pretty positive it's not a thesis in astrophysics (rocket science is a worn out cliché)... Chunk5Darth (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
When there is no appropriate criteria then the article does not qualify for speedy. That's the point of the policy :) §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
FRF you were correct in the decline, it was not a suitable CSD tag. @Chunk5Darth: I have removed the prod, and redirected the page to List of Happy Tree Friends episodes#Season 2: 2002.E2.80.932005, most of the other episodes (all the ones that I checked) redirect to the main show series (i.e. Rink Hijinks, Snip Snip Hooray!), but in my opinion they should redirect to appropriate season. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

kelapstick, good solution, thanks! Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal info remove

A trophy for you!
Dear FreeRangeFrog,

Thanks a lot for removing personal information on my users page. Also, thanks for notifying me. jjbernardiscool (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/MEF University

As per a recent deletion review, the opinion of one editor does not establish a consensus.  One editor is a WP:NOQUORUM, which limits deletes to "soft delete".  If you think the article should instead be deleted, then you can place a !vote to that effect.  FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Unscintillating: I have no opinion on the subject, I was just closing the AFD. I should have specified WP:SOFTDELETE in my comment, as I did here and here for example. I've updated the AFD in question, if there is a request to restore I will do so. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Medicinal Cannabis Super PAC deletion

Hi FreeRangeFrog, would it be possible to restore the article I submitted from my sandbox? And, if it's not too much trouble, could you explain what in the article violated copyright?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediCannSuperPAC (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of the page "Edgedown"

Hello, I'm totally new at Wikipedia so i translated an german article to english and wrote the article. So now the article has been deleted without having a chance to change it... I will try it again and write an shorter article of the band. Hope you could send me a message if... and what is wrong before deleting. Thank you a lot for helping me writing a correct article! Have a great day A_Meixner — Preceding unsigned comment added by A meixner (talk • contribs) 00:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@A meixner: The article was deleted because it was too promotional - when you translate you need to make sure the tone is encyclopedic and neutral. I've restored it here: User:A meixner/Edgedown so you can take the time to improve it. Regardless of why it was deleted in the first place, please make sure the subject also meets the notability guidelines for inclusion, or it will be deleted again. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, i created a new article already - maybe you could check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A meixner (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Chenelly article

Hello, my name is Joe Chenelly, and I was informed today that the Wikipedia article that was created some six years ago about me was deleted in the past day or so. I certainly appreciate the efforts you and your fellow editors put into keep Wikipedia the very best place online, and I would never want to be part of degrading the greatness. I looked through the conversation around the article in considering it for deletion, but I do not really understand why it had to go. I realize being that the article was about me, that I am going to sound self-serving here, but it was written originally written several fellow military and foreign correspondents. I was quite fortunate in where I was able to work, on who I was able to cover, etc. But the activities I was part of were significant then. There was conversation a few times on here over the years, and it was determined each time the article belonged on Wikipedia because I was the first correspondent to cover our troops on the ground in the wars in Afghanistan and then again the first to report from the boarder of Kuwait and Iraq as the 2003 invasion began. Then again from the Superdome in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I know the more time that passes the more people lose sight of the significance of those events, but they were hugely significant at the time. I was convinced by my peers then that I had been a part of real history each of those times. But that seems to no longer be the opinion of Wikipedia. I never edited the article other than to update my personal information (my children), but I could certainly tighten up the article just to reflect those significant times. I also was the first to report about the Iraqi family who put everything on the line and threw away their way of life to inform Marines of Pvt. Jessica Lynch's whereabouts. There was nothing bigger in the news at that time. I was also the first and to-date the only reporter to spend a night in a prison encampment in Afghanistan during the early days Operation Enduring Freedom. I read about a lack of sources, but the truth of the matter is I was profiled by USA Today, CBS News, on NPR numerous times as well as in local newspapers in Rochester, NY; suburban Washington; and San Diego. As far as the question about whether the article was about because of my time as a reporter or as a politician, I only entered local politics two years ago, but the article went up some six years ago. Please, reconsider the deletion. I ask for just 48 hours to edit it. OK, I can slash through it in 24 hours. Is that reasonable? Thank you either way for what you do for the billions of us using Wikipedia everyday for research. Best, Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.123.69 (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm just the person who actioned the consensus to delete; the discussion that led to the deletion is here. Sometimes articles don't assert the necessary notability and they are deleted as a result - you could always try to re-create it using the Articles for Creation service to have another volunteer look it over before it is published. I can't restore it (since again, there was consensus to delete) but I can provide the original text via email if you create a new draft. Just please make sure you review the relevant notability guidelines (also this one) to ensure the article would be accepted to begin with. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That is disappointing, but thank you for replying. Please email me at [redacted]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.123.69 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sent. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Desk Correspondent (2011-11-18). "Mansoor Ijaz names Haqqani as his source". Dawn. Retrieved 2011-11-23. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ Mullen Memorandum "Secret Pakistan Memo to Adm Mike Mullen", The Washington Post, 2011-11-17, Accessed 2014-04-01.
  3. ^ a b c d Salman Masood (2011-11-18). "Pakistani Envoy Offers to Resign Over Memo". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-11-23.
  4. ^ Tanveer, Rana "Memogate: Supreme Court admits Nawaz petition for regular hearing", The Express Tribune, 2011-11-28. Accessed 2014-03-24.
  5. ^ a b Pakistan Judicial Commission "Pages 108-121, Judicial Commission Report", Supreme Court of Pakistan, 2012-06-12. Accessed 2014-03-24.
  6. ^ Ahmad, Fasih and Taseer, Shehrbano "Pakistan: Judges Rebuke Haqqani in Memogate Scandal", The Daily Beast, 2012-06-13, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  7. ^ Frum, David "Haqqani: I am No Traitor", The Daily Beast, 2012-06-16, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  8. ^ BBC News Asia "Pakistan 'memogate' envoy Husain Haqqani gets travel ban", BBC, 2011-12-01. Accessed 2014-04-01.
  9. ^ Verma, Smitha "I have no desire to become a martyr", Telegraph India, 2013-11-03, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  10. ^ "Memogate: Ijaz to record testimony from London", Rediff.com, 2012-02-12, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  11. ^ Staff Report "Memogate case: Supreme Court issues notice to Interior Secretary", Pakistan Observer, 2013-01-29. Accessed 2014-03-24.
  12. ^ Hirsh, Michael "The Last Friendly Pakistani", The Atlantic, 2011-11-23, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  13. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577054562038161248.html
  14. ^ Desk Correspondent (2011-11-18). "Mansoor Ijaz names Haqqani as his source". Dawn. Retrieved 2011-11-23. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  15. ^ Mullen Memorandum "Secret Pakistan Memo to Adm Mike Mullen", The Washington Post, 2011-11-17, Accessed 2014-04-01.
  16. ^ Tanveer, Rana "Memogate: Supreme Court admits Nawaz petition for regular hearing", The Express Tribune, 2011-11-28. Accessed 2014-03-24.
  17. ^ BBC News Asia "Pakistan 'memogate' envoy Husain Haqqani gets travel ban", BBC, 2011-12-01. Accessed 2014-04-01.
  18. ^ Verma, Smitha "I have no desire to become a martyr", Telegraph India, 2013-11-03, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  19. ^ "Memogate: Ijaz to record testimony from London", Rediff.com, 2012-02-12, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  20. ^ Ahmad, Fasih and Taseer, Shehrbano "Pakistan: Judges Rebuke Haqqani in Memogate Scandal", The Daily Beast, 2012-06-13, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  21. ^ Frum, David "Haqqani: I am No Traitor", The Daily Beast, 2012-06-16, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  22. ^ Staff Report "Memogate case: Supreme Court issues notice to Interior Secretary", Pakistan Observer, 2013-01-29. Accessed 2014-03-24.
  23. ^ Hirsh, Michael "The Last Friendly Pakistani", The Atlantic, 2011-11-23, Accessed 2014-04-02.
  24. ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204443404577054562038161248.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FreeRangeFrog/Archive_7&oldid=1147987939"