User talk:Froggie19Dude

Froggie19Dude, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Froggie19Dude! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Reddish concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Reddish, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Reddish

Hello Froggie19Dude. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "David Reddish".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Reddish}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Reddish for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sex, Drugs & Superheroes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sex, Drugs & Superheroes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Froggie19Dude. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Merger discussion talk page section

The article Merger discussion talk page section has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Inappropriate page - looks to be a misplaced talk page discussion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. noq (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussions should take place on the talk page of one of the articles - not in a new article. Please re-post to the correct place and place a {{db-author}} tag on this article to get it speedy deleted. noq (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-author}}Froggie19Dude (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with David Reddish. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought the issue had been settled in favor of merging.Froggie19Dude (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

In this edit, you refer to WP:VANDALISM. But that term has a particular meaning here on WP. When you use that word, it means you're questioning the editor's good faith and that you believe he or she was trying to damage WP. You should not toss that term around lightly unless you'd like to be sure that no one gives a damn what you think about anything. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Msnicki, I meant no offense, and there's no need for profanity. However, someone was doctoring my comments. That may not qualify as vandalism in your strict sense, but I would imagine there is a rule against it. Thank you for your clarification!Froggie19Dude (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "doctoring" that happened was me striking your second "Merge" !vote. (You only get one and after that, your remarks should be labeled as comments to avoid confusing the closing admin or anyone else who may be trying to count noses.) I suppose this was a grey area under WP:TPO but I think it's allowed under the rubric of fixing a format error. You're new and I get that you don't know the rules. But this is why you're floundering and having trouble understanding why the sources you think are perfectly fine are getting rejected. You'll probably find it helpful to read WP:AFD and WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your help, Msnicki, but as Wikiettiquite dictates "don't bite the newbies!" So please, don't refer to me as "floundering" or use profanity when you address me. I've read both WP:AFD and WP:GNG and while the minutae of each page are a lot to take in and I appreciate any guidence, there's no reason to be rude. I'm all for spirited discussion, but there's no reason to make it heated. In my comments in the discussions for both pages I've outlined why I deem my cited sources credible under WP:SECONDARY guidelines and how they establish the subject as notable. As noted in Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, the increasing complexity and disputed interpretations of Wiki policies have lead to more debates over how to meet criteria for inclusion or what constitutes a reliable source, which is, I think, the heart of the debates in this case. I thank you again for guidence and would prefer to collaborate in discussion of sources and subjects whether we agree or not, but please be curteous and non-antagonistic!Froggie19Dude (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to be helpful and look how you're behaving, repeatedly squealing like a stuck pig that I would use the common phrase "give a damn", obviously just to be difficult and to try to put me on the defensive. Are you 12? Is your skin that thin? Never mind. I no longer care what you think. I guess it was going to happen. Msnicki (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ANI-notice

Hello Froggie19Dude,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged ANI-notice for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Roborule (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above notice is an automated one. It appears that you believe that you are being harassed by a user, and while there is a place that this can be handled, creating a page in the article space is not the correct way. I can understand your frustration, I would encourage you to refer to WP:Civil and review the information listed there. Thanks, Roborule (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see that you were trying to make a report, you need to go to WP:ANI and create your discussion there. Roborule (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently created ANI-notice in the wrong place (as if it were a Wikipedia article, not a request for administrators' attention). I've therefore deleted the mainspace "post" and restored your posting at WP:ANI. Deor (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Deor. I know I'm also supposed to notify the user who's been harrassing me, but I'm having trouble getting the ANI template to work. It always comes up with a broken link.

July 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is a sockpuppet and undisclosed paid editor account. Paid editing isn't the problem, but the combination is such that I have indef blocked him and his sock and do not recommend unblocking this disposable account, as it is tied to a much, much larger (and undisclosed) account. At the very least, I would ask you notify me before any unblock was made, a departure from my usual methods. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Froggie19Dude (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Dennis, and thank you for your attention.

I've no idea where the idea that I am some sock account came from. Upon reviewing the other pages, including my harassment complaint against Msnicki this morning; first of all, thank you for examining my case. I found her language and tone out of line for what I assume is supposed to be a place of civil debate and discourse. Her insults, however, were uncalled for. As noted on my talk page, I apologize for not posting a correct ANI notification on her page, but I could not get he link to work correctly--it simply showed up as a dead/red link. Contrary to opinions expressed in discussing my account, I am not a skilled user when it comes to some of the higher funciton of the site. Editing a normal page is one thing, but with the user & talk pages and all the code used for notifications, tagging, etc., I'm afraid I'm a bit lost.

Which brings me to the real subject here. I'm not a sock puppet, and the allegation that I'm a paid user using multiple accounts is outragerous and false. I admire David Reddish's writing; his book Sex, Drugs & Superheroes is one of my favorites, and I only meant to defend my work rather than see it deleted. I certainly was not trying to pick fights with other users, and I had no ulterior motive beyond maintaining the articles I composed. It's incredible to me that the pages could have been quality checked and maintained for over a year only to have this insane course of events take place.

Beyond a mutal intrest in David Reddish's work, I've no idea what would connect me to any other user; I am the sole user of this account (unless it was hacked, but I see no evidence to that effect). If there is some kind of IP address conflict, that is beyond my technical expertise, though I would submit that, as I work from my office at a very large company with it's own set of file servers, we might have some IP crossover. Otherwise, I know of no evidence, even circumstantial, that would lead anyone to believe I'm part of a sinister account designed to alter or distribute false information.

My intentions were not at all malicious or subversive in trying to contribute to Wikipedia. That said, with all the harrassment I've encountered the past few days, the insults, the accusations, and a group of users that refuse to explain their opinions or rebut my own, I don't know how this website can purport to be of worth. I again apologize for the neusince this has, I'm sure, caused you this evening, and hope to be little trouble in the future.

In sum, I would ask that you please unblock my account so I might continue the discussion over the two pages I created in hopes that they can be maintained or updated to meet Wiki standards, and because I think learning more about the site could be useful to me in the future. I hope that you will consider my appeal in good faith and trust that I do not seek to cause trouble or distribute false or misleading information; I was, sincerely, acting in good conscience. I thank you for your consideration, and again apologize for any trouble you've been caused as a direct or indirect result of my actions.

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser-confirmed block and as such will not be removed by any admin not possessing checkuser ability.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 08:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A small subset of Wikipedia administrators have tools which allow them to see technical details of all users logged in. One of those users confirmed that there is strong evidence that you and User:FlashJudgment are the same person. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jamie. As I say, I've no idea what this evidence is; therefore I cannot address it. However and will all due respect and politeness, suggesting that I'm part of some illicit paid Wiki-corruption ring is outrageous.

I had determined you were a paid editor likely using multiple accounts by behavioral and technical analysis of your entire edit history (It's a hobby). Then a WP:Checkuser confirmed sockpuppetry using technical means, without being asked, which was then linked using editor histories to show overlap, thus abuse. I would bet a month's salary I know who the employer is. Anyway, if a Checkuser wants to review and unblock, I will happily walk away, but I don't think an admin is going to review without Checkuser input first. And to be clear, I don't believe you because I'm swimming in evidence to the contrary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, with respect Dennis, I maintain I am not a paid sockpuppet user. I'm aware of Checkuser and how it works, but again, I have no idea what data would lead you to believe as much. I'm sorry for all the trouble, but I had only noble objectives. That you take your work here seriously is admirable, but I would caution you not to let hubris affect your profesionalism. The details of my personal life, including my present employer, are none of your business. Making insinuations regarding my personal life is, I believe, a form of harassment under Wiki guidelines. Once more, I apologize for any stress or annoyance I've caused you, but you are mistaken in your assumptions

More wikilawyering and feigning innocence, poorly I might add. I truly don't care who you are. I wasn't asking you to reveal your employer nor anything personal. I've never even mentioned the name of any company that pays to edit here, ever, I'm certainly not going to start now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]