User talk:FreeRangeFrog/Archive 1

Barn Owl Review
Hi, FreeRangeFrog. Thanks for the note on the Barn Owl Review page. I've added a few reference links to the page and hope that we're in good shape now. Can you have a look when you have a second and let me know. Thanks much! Primus29 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Excellent work. I went ahead and removed the references tag,and formalized the article's talk page. You might want to stop by WikiProject Literature as well. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ribare
Thanks for revising my page! I am a novice, so I would appreciate a couple of hints - by doing what exactly can I improve my page? Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribare (talk • contribs) 10:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:Your first article for information. The most important thing to do is to make sure the information you've added to Wikipedia is supported by independent, reliable sources. §FreeRangeFrog 20:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

image placeholder
You might want to provide what you advertise in your edit summary - a description (or pointer here) of the discussion about the undesirability of the placeholders (John User:Jwy talk) 20:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My hope is that somebody who comes across the Michael Crichton article, a student who attended one of his lectures or something will see the request and will upload an image of him. By removing placeholders, in effect you are removing some degree of potential to gain image content. I;m sure you believe that there is some consensus against using them amongst a handful of editors, but there are thousands of editors who have always used them and continue to do so as they want to see us grow and if possible gain content. If the placeholders are not acceptable, then naturally they should all be deleted . The Bald One       White cat 21:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I believe that was one of the counter arguments against removal. But the discussion ended with the decision to discontinue usage. I guess I'm being overzealous? If this is a contentious issue then I'll stop. Thanks for the comment. §FreeRangeFrog 21:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Cosmes Corres
They are notable. They had authority over a huge island. Similar to any Governor, etc... Kensplanet TC 08:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, can you provide sources for them? §FreeRangeFrog 08:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ofcourse. If you check the article. Anyway check http://books.google.com/books?id=miD5YO05jpUC&pg=PA96&dq=Jo%C3%A3o+Rodrigues+Dantas (after the highlighted term)...Salsette was a huge island in Bombay. Kensplanet TC 08:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you! §FreeRangeFrog 08:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Safire (software)
I contested the speedy because it is obviously not spam and software can't be deleted by any speedy criteria. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 03:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just didn't know what to do with it. The speedy deletion criteria sometimes doesn't help. On the other hand, I've seen some stuff about people making pages for any little beta SourceForge project on WP, so I figured it should be deleted. §FreeRangeFrog 04:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Taitz
fyi []
 * Is the information included in the Obama page? I agree it has a problem with WP:NOTABILITY, but if the information is valuable then it should be merged. §FreeRangeFrog 21:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you
FreeRangeFrog (love your name) Thanks for taking the time to comment on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction). I am glad that other editors such as yourself see how important to wikipedia this guideline will be, since it will determine the inclusion or exclusion of television character and television episodes.

You may want to know, that your contributions were called Godwin's law. Ikip (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ROFL, I didn't mean it that way, but I guess it's true. It just feels like a slippery slope to get on, inclusion-wise. I was glad to chip in my $0.02 §FreeRangeFrog 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aarrgh...
Why in heck don't people like that read the rules? I didn't want to block him for a self-promotional username, but I'm about to. It's clear he knows what he's doing on a wiki, so he can't plead ignorance IMO. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Owe ya a big, juicy free range fly. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 05:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob, just thought it was kinda weird. I think I've seen it go three times already... looking forward to the fly, too :) §FreeRangeFrog 05:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sally Jaye
I am following the header you just placed to the letter. it says "You may remove this message if you improve the article OR otherwise object to deletion for any reason. I do so I'm removing this again. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now added a whole bunch of references to magazines and newspapers. I guess I should have done so while it was in my sandbox but it looked polished enough for placement so I figured I would add references in the coming weeks. You forced my hand on references faster than I wanted (so I'll be tired tomorrow morning) but the article is better because of it. Thanks for the gentle shove. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Tags
Can't use a G4 on anything that didn't go through a full MfD process. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * True, realized after. I restored the bio tag you put in. §FreeRangeFrog 04:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MuZemike 04:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

table on userpage
I just wanted to say I like the table(free range frog) on your userpage. I don't know why but I get a laugh from it.WackoJacko (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's important to explain what a free range frog is, and componentizing the name that way does it quite well, I think :) §FreeRangeFrog 05:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/David Stanley
You said the references in the article aren't reliable but you didn't give any indication as to whether you looked for replacements. Please clarify your comment at this AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 09:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AFD, Deletion policy and WP:BEFORE say that deletion is the final solution for articles that cannot be salvaged, so you should either make a case for speedy deletion (as you seem to be trying for) or prove it cannot be salvaged. In most cases modern topics can be researched with Google. If no reliable sources turn up with Google, Google Books or Google Scholar, you have a good indication none will exist. Doing that search and being sure will make it clear to everyone your vote was a well-informed decision about its potential rather than its current state. - Mgm|(talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Help Improve Article
Amuse inc AuricBlofeld (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please wait. I need time to think. Thank you.AuricBlofeld (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who deletes your article, I just marked it for deletion. An admin will delete it. You have added the tag to contest the deletion, that is enough for now. There's a window of time where you either have to provide additional sources to establish that your subject is notable, or explain why the article should exist in the Talk page. §FreeRangeFrog 05:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this news article will it be sufficient? http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22807920_ITM AuricBlofeld (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, i will put the links in the talkpage.AuricBlofeld (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not enough. A mere mention of the company in a press release does not establish that the company is notable. You need to provide sources that unambiguously say this company is important under the guidelines provided here. Does that make sense? Imagine if we had a Wikipedia page for every company in the planet. That would be unwieldy to say the least :) §FreeRangeFrog 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again.AuricBlofeld (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I tagged your article so that it won't be a delete magnet :) Once you're done, just remove it. §FreeRangeFrog 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Pinehurst Kids
I thank you for your notification regarding this article. I discussed this earlier this week. The Pinehurst Kids meet the first requirement of WP:BAND, the notability standard on bands. They were reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. The link is right there, in the article. I would ask you to please remove your tag, it is incorrect per Wikipedia policy. Spinach Monster (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes, it was an error. The Pinehurst Kids meet notability requirements per WP:BAND portion of WP:MUSIC. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I take it I can delete it again...? GbT/c 21:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. GbT/c 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened? Spinach Monster (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The link you provided in the article was in a reliable media website, but it was written by an intern and it did not establish notability in any way. That band was still just a college band with no charting records or singles, no airplay other than in college radio. It definitely failed WP:BAND. Sorry. §FreeRangeFrog 21:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The discussion continues back on my talk page (to keep it all in the same place). GbT/c 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

SCP 06F6‎ Image
Hey there. I retagged the SCP 06F6‎ image you uploaded, as it's not actually from ESA, it's from the discovery paper. Just a heads up! Cheers. --Falcorian (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog 22:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, Thanks! Spinach Monster (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rita Ratnayake
How would you suggest I wikify and copyedit that article? I thought I did follow the style of Wikipedia. It only lacking sources IMO. ۝ ۞ ░ 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those films have Wikipedia articles. :( I will add some sources soon. ۝ ۞ ░

Thanks!
Jeez, you give a guy warnings not to advertise and, well, he advertises. All of his edits were either to that article or spam links to same, so I clobbered the account as advertising only. Thanks for letting me know, bro. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

pov-check on FM 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations
You placed a pov-check flag on this article, but didn't explain why. According to Template:pov-check you should identify what problems exist on the talk page when placing the template. I wouldn't be surprised if the article does have problems at this time, since I began the article with a series of articles found in a search at The Guardian, but it's hard to resolve that tag without a specific problem to look into. Mike Serfas (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag since you seem to still be actively working on the article. §FreeRangeFrog 16:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging for speedy deletion
Hi FreeRangeFrog. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete Summersteps Records, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: Please be more careful with A7. It does not require notability to be proven, nor verified. If there is any indication at all that the article's subject might be notable, then A7 cannot be applied. In this case for example notability is implied because the subject has a notable band under contract. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards  So Why  09:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of companies seeking to promote themselves on WP based on notability by association is a slippery slope at best, and it was the list of artists the author had there that set off my warning beeper. Because next thing you know, pages are being created for those artists, claiming notability with the record company, who in turn claims notability with that single notable artist and so on and so forth. The non-criteria point you mention reads there is no consensus... to speedy articles based on failing A7. I know about that and have considered it in the past. In this case however, I went by gut feeling about the reasons that article was created in the first place. I don't mind getting an occasional speedy overturned at all, on the contrary. In fact I have reverted SDs myself when called for, especially in the case of people. §FreeRangeFrog 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have any doubt to whether you should nominate an article for speedy deletion, don't do it. IAR speedy deletions are few and far between, it's the reason we have such strict criteria.-- Patton t / c 18:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete anything, and I wasn't going to. I'm not an admin. §FreeRangeFrog 18:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence "nominate an article for speedy deletion"...-- Patton t / c 21:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Patton t / c 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto
Am new... if you can help with format of references is very helpful ? All else seems ok, no ? tx much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Gilberto Hinojosa
I was just looking at that page when you added a CSD A7 wondering if it was a vanity article, or whether it's a real person. Gilberto Hinojosa is a former Cameron County Texas Judge (head of the county government) and is the current Cameron County Democratic Chairman. See: http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story/Hinojosa-Nominates-Virgina-Gov-to-be-Next-DNC/Q7uO1d38EEaTiMLFc67Vng.cspx. The article needs a LOT of cleanup, but it does assert notability by mention of him being a county judge, hence it does not meet A7. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 05:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * County judge! My bad, thanks. I'll remove the CSD tag. §FreeRangeFrog 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you already did. Thanks again. §FreeRangeFrog 05:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it got speedied already (that really was speedy), but I asked an admin to review it, and they restored. I'm not usually one for keeping such blatantly peacock articles, but for a change, this guy does actually seem notable. It's going to need a great deal of weed-whacking. --Chasingsol(talk) 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that on my watchlist. I left a message on the admin's page apologizing for that. §FreeRangeFrog 06:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's looking a little better now. Just need to find more references... --Chasingsol(talk) 06:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of biographical information out there. §FreeRangeFrog 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noticed. I'm hoping that the person who created the article can come up with something, since they seem to know a great deal of his history. Otherwise, it's going to be very very short! I'll keep digging around though. Considering Cameron County is the most populous border area in Texas, there should be more information out there somewhere. --Chasingsol(talk) 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of New World Department Store China Limited
I think you may need to be a bit more careful with your tagging. This article seems to me to be written in a fine, neutral tone, not in a promotional one. Not all articles about companies and products are spam, after all. Since it's a rather serious accusation to say someone is spamming, be careful that you're right before you tag something with a spam tag. If I've missed something, feel free to let me know. Cheers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there are no claims to notability there whatsoever, the only reason why someone would create a page for a company is to make it notable, which is by definition spamming. I can write neutral-sounding articles about anything, but that doesn't mean I can justify encyclopedic value or meet criteria for inclusion. If the article was written by an employee, would you rather I'd tagged it with "non-notable company"? Maybe that would be worse than claiming it's spam. I prefer to get a CSD tag wrong than to leave an article there that contributes absolutely nothing to the encyclopedia, other than promote a corporate entity. §FreeRangeFrog 05:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As it was right there in the article that it's listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, I'd say there's a fair assertion of notability in the article, so non-notable company would not have worked, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See CORP. There is no consensus that notability is automatically established simply by virtue of being listed in a stock exchange. The author of the article provided no other assertions of notability, such as "Foo Corp is the largest umbrella retailer in Eastern Smallavia". I think even a WP:CSD would have been appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog 05:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know it does not automatically mean the company is notable, but it does mean the article asserts notability, which is a very different thing. Articles of certain sorts that don't assert notability can be speedied; articles that do, but where the assertion is questioned, go through AfD. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While an assertion of notability is required to avoid a CSD, I don't see that a stock exchange listing would automatically do that, let alone actually establish notability. To me, an assertion of notability in this case would have been something beyond merely being listed in the stock exchange - without that it's just another company.... spamming :) Anyway, I don't want to get into it with you, but I'll try to be more careful. I'm just trying to keep cruft off Wikipedia, that's all. Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 06:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case this wasn't clear: I'm not in any way questioning your good faith here. Carry on in good faith, and keep trying to make Wikipedia better. Cheers, Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Tagging of 苔原
I've been pulled up in the past for over-reliance upon G1 for speedy deletions, so now it's my turn... "Material not in English" is specifically excluded from the definition of Patent nonsense – instead, use notenglish. Unless, of course, you speak the language and so can confirm that it is nonsense (in which case, a handy note to that effect would help a poor reviewing admin!) Regards, BencherliteTalk 08:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A paragraph of chinese text in the English wikipedia is not an article, and it's not material requiring translation or something to spend more than 30 seconds on - it's nonsense. It's not difficult to make out that something is valuable simply by looking at the amount of content and work that went into creating it. Had I seen any potential value whatsoever there, even being completely clueless as to the subject matter, I would have left it alone. §FreeRangeFrog 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you get consensus for that view at WT:CSD and the definition of nonsense changes, please let me know. In the meantime, I'll carry on using the present definition of nonsense.  I'm not saying that the article shouldn't be deleted; I'm just saying that it shouldn't be deleted speedily.  There is an important difference.  Thanks, BencherliteTalk 09:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Example of COI edit request (English Wikipedia).PNG
Hi there. If you're still into creating Wikipedia screenshots, would you fancy updating the file you uploaded in 2015, and used solely on this page?. I've been working my way through all our help pages identifying where text and/or images still refer to 'Save page' rather than 'Publish page'. This altered across all of en.Wiki late last year and could obviously be confusing to newcomers trying to follow the instructions. Many thanks, Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops - I see you've not been active since 2015. Just leaving this here for reference. Nick Moyes (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:Redknee Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Redknee 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pegasus Airlines Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Pegasus Airlines Logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canadian Affair Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Canadian Affair Logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:KidPower logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:KidPower logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ArrowElectronicsLogo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ArrowElectronicsLogo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Kumar Bajitpur
In this edit you included a link to an EB1911 article on Wikisource. I can find no source on Wikisource, so I am removing it. If you do know what the source was then please re-edit the article and add it as  ( is the new name for the old template of ) -- PBS (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)