User talk:FreeRangeFrog/Archive 8

Ferroconcrete
Hello, I noticed you deleted my page Ferroconcrete (company) for no indication of importance and unambiguous advertising and promotion. The indication of importance was toned down when writing the article because I did not want it to come across as advertising and promotion. However, I will rewrite the page indicating importance and hopefully that will take care of the impression that it is unambiguous advertising and promotion. Thank you for your feedback and constructive criticism. Hishaamsiddiqi (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Immediate deletion aside, please read through the notability guidelines for inclusion. I would recommend you use the Articles for Creation service instead of trying to re-create the article yourself. The conflict of interest guide has more information. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Boraie
Can you please provide some more info regarding what you've called biased references at Talk:Boraie Development? thanks Djflem (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some real-work stuff to do and I'm going offline, but I will reply on your talk page tonight. Thanks for your patience. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but could you do that on the talk page of the article?Djflem (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz article
I'm reaching out to you about my next project (having contributed to the redevelopment of Mansoor Ijaz, Timothy M. Carney and Robin Raphel. I wish to redevelop the article in the encyclopedia about my father, Dr. Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz. As I noticed on your talk page below that you had offered to help a particular individual whose article had been nominated for deletion by sending him an old version of the article that he could redevelop, I thought I would ask if you might help me in the same way -- about two and a half years ago, one of the other editor/administrators (Moonriddengirl) did a wholesale delete of article Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz originally posted by Ironboy11 that initiated coverage of my father.


 * 05:31, 12 July 2011‎ Ironboy11 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,946 bytes) (+17,946)‎ . . (←Created page with '{{Infobox scientist | name =Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz | image =Replace this image male.svg |

At the time in October 2011, about ten days after the delete was made by Moonriddengirl on grounds of copyright violations by Ironboy11 (who apparently was a serial violator of copyright issues), she and I exchanged comments as posted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_40 (section Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz). I was a complete novice with Wiki standards and editing practices, and wholly unaware of any of what I have learned from the interactive process with you and Nyttend in re-writing article Mansoor Ijaz.

So I wanted to see with you whether it might be possible to reach out to Moonriddengirl and see if we could get either the references used or the architecture of the original article about my father that had quite a lot of data in it which was accurate and correct, if poorly expressed in the "cut and paste" manner that was emblematic of Ironboy11's articles. Even though I had nothing to do with the conception of the article at that time, I recall some of that data represented things about my dad's early life that even I did not know. It would be a shame to lose that data to a good researcher (which I believe Ironboy11 was) who just didn't understand Wiki rules. I could help a lot in the re-write, with us engaging in a similar process as we did on article Mansoor Ijaz. What I specifically seek from you is to obtain the elements of that original article that we could re-work and make it acceptable to Wiki standards.

The key issue of course with someone of my father's achievements is that almost all of it was done during a period of time before internet capabilities existed and were recorded as such. So the traditional mechanisms available to us to verify and source materials will be a challenge, but we as his children may be able to help source much of the materials back to clippings from newspapers or Physics journals that carried record of his life. Sort of like the old weightlifting articles in my case. If you can access that original article that was deleted, could you dump it into my Sandbox? I know you are busy with other things, but this is one of the projects I wanted to work on and thought maybe you could help with initial outreach while I do the hard lifting of re-write and sourcing. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mansoor Ijaz}} For obvious reasons we can't restore the text, but I will email you the list of citations that don't appear in the current article. § FreeRangeFrog {{sup|croak}} 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Good morning, Sir. I copy and paste in below a message I left at the Commons speedy delete noticeboard earlier this morning in respect of a copyright issue Nyttend flagged on the article Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz that I am currently working to re-develop. As you are an administrator with OTRS compliance capability, he recommended I make sure you see this as well.
 * Nyttend tagged File:Dr. Mujaddid Ahmed Ijaz, 1983.png and File:MujaddidAhmedIjaz1987.jpg due to the creation of the images by a professional photographer in the local town in Virginia where we all grew up with my father and mother. We routinely had Olan Mills come in and for historical purposes prepare annual photographic images of the family. I would ask that Wikipedia Media Copyright administrators give me a few days to contact Olan Mills in Virginia and obtain a proper permission release for free use from them. We know the company well and I am confident we can obtain a release for this particular image. In fact, their website allows many images to be used in mediums such as this, so I just need to contact them and get the right data. To whom should someone at Olan Mills send directly their release permission if it is agreed? Nyttend explained at Mansoor Ijaz's talk page that it would be best to have the permission release sent directly to you. I ask therefore, as I am re-developing the subject article at the moment, that you allow me the time to obtain the release permission from Olan Mills studios. Thank you. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If okay with you, I will have Olan Mills send the proper permission to you later today (they are based in Christiansburg, VA so EDT) in order that you can handle the necessary internal matters at hand. Many thanks for your attention to this -- I would like my father's re-developed page to be the very best it can be. --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Mansoor Ijaz}} Sure thing, just send it to the same address (info-en) as before and I'll make sure it gets processed. § FreeRangeFrog {{sup|croak}} 16:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * {{ping|FreeRangeFrog}} A lady named Carrie Beltz from Olan Mills in Roanoke, VA will be sending you both their standard release form and filling out the one at the Wikicommons site I was given. She promised to do that today and was happy to do it. Best, --Mansoor Ijaz (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

AfD closure
FreeRangeFrog, I think you made an error in closing this AfD. The "keep" voters ignored the fact that the man fails notability per WP:GNG. I even gave an analysis of the sources/links used in the article and how they aren't enough to make him notable. There are sources that talk about books he wrote, but not on the man himself. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Those were clear and valid keep opinions - three of them actually. But you're of course free to take it to WP:DRV if you wish. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this to say certain guidelines can take precedence over others? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * AFDs that involve scholars, citation indexes and the like can be confusing sometimes... but we're an encyclopedia after all. GNG is not always the most important consideration. The moment someone proves the subject passes one of the PROF criteria it's pretty much keep city (if you look at WP:OUTCOMES you'll see many other examples) unless there are other negative considerations, which this subject didn't have. DRV often attracts cogent discussion, I would hardly pop a gasket if you feel you can get an opposing second opinion there, but honestly I don't think that will be the case. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:OUTCOMES, I will say this is an interesting read..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

K152 (band)
I did some searching on korean sites and found no information about them (besides a link to the wiki article). And a main contributor seems to be linked to the group. It could be a indie band in South Korea that wasn't successful. &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 15:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably should take it to AFD then. Or maybe try a PROD. I don't doubt what you're saying, it was just that the speedy tag was invalid. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll tell User:Kanghuitari about that. Thanks. &#9780; Jaewon &#91;Talk&#93; 16:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Mehgan James
Why did you delete the Mehgan James wiki page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.15.202.106 (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Because there was a consensus to delete. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI
Just to say I will shortly be taking this to ANI. Blethering  Scot  21:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your protection now at ANI. Blethering  Scot  22:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Como Brothers Band Deletion
Dear FreeRangeFrog,

I do not understand why The Como Brothers Band Wikipedia page was deleted. I contested the deletion and it appears no one even looked at my objections. I request this page be restored. Read through the page and you will see that all information being relayed can be verified by third party persons. All facts written are referenced and sources are clearly outlined. All material is objective and unbiased. This page was not created for the promotion/advertisement of any person, place or product. It is simply ridiculous that I have no one to contact in matters regarding the deletion of the page. The Wikipedia page is needed to clarify information regarding the nature of the band, history, and its verified web sources. The band needs a source to relay which information is accurate as there have been several discrepancies. The Como Brothers Band has an imdb http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6398859/

It has multiple reviews of their albums and performances from outside parties. To name a few:
 * Brian Lion of Under The Gun Review has praised the album, stating, "Pretty much the whole of Baby Steps is catchy as hell".
 * Brian Weidy of IX Daily’s reviewed the album, writing, "The Como Brothers Band excels on their debut".
 * Joshua Smotherman of Middle Tennessee Music writes, “Baby Steps includes track after track of grade A++ quality songwriting, musicianship, and originality”
 * James Wilson of My Random Jukebox speaks of Matt and Andrew’s songwriting abilities, stating, “How the music is put together alongside the catchy lyrics is a credit to their songwriting ability (which I think is their biggest talent)”.
 * I Am Entertainment Magazine wrote, “It’s just a matter of time before these guys explode into the mainstream”.

Please help me to resolve this problem. If you can point me to a contact that is capable of recovering deleted page let me know. Thank you. Marissa Smith
 * You are making an argument for notability - the article was deleted because it was written as an advertisement. Those are two very different things. If you recreate the article in a neutral tone that doesn't read like a brochure written by a PR agency then you might have a chance. Beyond immediate deletion though, the subject must meet the notability guidelines for inclusion, or it will be subsequently deleted. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Given the edit warring has been sorted out please unprotect Leigh Griffiths now. NE Ent

Slamacow Creations Deletion
Dear FreeRangeFrog,

I don't understand why you would delete the article. I honestly think the article should still be up because the series is very popular and gets about 3 Million Views per video. I wasn't done working on the article. It still had some unfinished work, so could you please restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.56.235 (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles must make a credible claim to importance, otherwise they will be deleted. Simply saying "video gets X million views" is not enough, you must at least provide some evidence, ideally from a secondary source. See WP:42 and WP:CSD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Dstillery
Hey FreeRangeFrog, I am doing a project for a communications course I am in which has me creating a wikipedia page concerning companies that aren't on wikipedia. I intended on coming back to the page to edit it, I thought that saving the page would save it to allow me to finish it before it was published. I am looking to retain my page to bolster the information on the topic. I am new to wikipedia and this was my first post ever. Thanks for the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRev (talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can restore the context to the Draft namespace where you can work on it undisturbed until it's ready to go live. I'd highly recommend reading the notability guidelines before though. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be great, thank you and I definitely will take a look a the notability guidelines. How do I go about accessing my topic after it is restored? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewRev (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The restored content is at Draft:Dstillery. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

MCLR text copyright issue
Hi FreeRangeFrog,

I just updated the page MCLR page http://www.marijuanacontrollegalizationrevenueact.com/what/the-language-full-text/ as well as the google document for MCLR 2016 to show the proper licenses (CC-By-US 3.0). Is it possible to undelete MCLR_2016_Wiki_Version? or should I re-create the page? I'm new to wikipedia editing, still trying to figure it out.--Morepot (talk) 00:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's good, but I still don't think that belongs in Wikipedia because it's not in scope of what a encyclopedia article is. Instead, you should upload it to WikiSource. You might want to ask the folks over at the Village Pump, they might have other ideas as well. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Sandown Greyhounds
Hi, just wondering why the page Sandown Greyhounds was deleted? The content that was said to be a copyright infringement is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason3613 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an almost direct copy of this page. See WP:COPYVIO. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Am I able to retrieve the page so I can edit it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason3613 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll restore almost anything, but I don't restore articles deleted as copyright violations. You might want to try asking here and see if someone is willing to do it for you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

ForgeRock
Please explain how I should go about creating a draft article about a company, especially when there are numerous references to it throughout Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=ForgeRock&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go). The page was not complete, I realize this. Regarding notability, I am of the opinion it is as it picks up from legacy Sun Microsystems and was a direct result of the acquisition of Sun by Oracle. Crkey (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Use the draft namespace: Draft:ForgeRock. Or your sandbox. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The speedy that you changed to a prod
Well another thing is that I put an AFD on the redirect that the page was going to so I was unsure of what to say for that one ha ha, well thanks. Wgolf (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. While it is written rather badly, we can't make a case that it is an advertisement, since it's not really advertising anything. If the author removes the PROD I'll take it to AFD. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep this is the page that is the same Visakhapatnam Metro. Wgolf (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I didn't see that. Well then, we can just restore the redirect since the text was identical, and when the AFD ends it can be deleted as an invalid redirect :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well I have started a few AFD's as of late, well have a nice day. Wgolf (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Oddly I did a AFD but it never appeared
It was for this: List of Shortland Street characters (2014), but it is for the best as I misunderstood this list and thought it was a list for a TV show that started this year with just one character. still I think it is odd that when I pressed enter it never came up. Wgolf (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like you even edited it. Are you using Twinkle? That makes everything a lot easier. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Cheers
Thanks for the contact and justification regarding the 'Speedy deletion declined: BeamNG Drive' from earlier today. appreciated. Zakhx150 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for move
I was attempting to move Mark_Fischbach to Markiplier only to find out that I cannot for some technical reason. I don't think it would be controversial, as it IS the common name for the article's subject. Would you do this for me? Or are you going to request that I go to the backlogged requests for move? I was instructed by the page to make a request, or contact an administrator. I did the latter. Tutelary (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm also going to ask you to continue tagging CSDs, just be careful and follow the policy to the letter. We all make mistakes at first :) If you have the slightest doubt about a tag, don't tag it. Leave it to another patroller. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 18:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do places count under an A7? Falougha is the article. I'm not going to tag it as A7 is pretty particular about what it applies to, but I just thought I'd ask. Tutelary (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, populated places are never eligible for speedy, except perhaps as copyright violations. They are also almost never deleted in AFD, see WP:NGEO. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

D-J Engineering Inc.
Hello-

I got a deletion notice for my D-J Engineering page. How is this page different than the Whittl page that you declined speedy deletion for? My article is about a company been around for 20 years with great contributions to the aerospace industries as aerospace manufacturer. What is a clear indicator that this article is promotion or advertising?

what is the article Aircraft component manufacturers about? is it missing a large amount of solid contributors?

If there is a quick fix please let me know- I realized the article is missing external links, pls point out the obvious that I am not aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsimmons88 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsimmons88 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is the Whittl page is written like something someone not related to the company might write, including third-party mentions. Your article could have been pulled from a company brochure for all practical purposes. Now, I assume you have a conflict of interest here, and you should know that we discourage people from directly creating articles about their companies or clients. So, what you need to do is review the notability guidelines first, and then if you feel the subject meets them, use the articles for creation service so another volunteer can assess the article before it is promoted. Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory of companies or things, and even "informing people" about your company is considered self-promotion. Further, your article didn't have a single citation, so I'm not sure how we're supposed to know that your company has "great contributions to the aerospace industries". Those types of claims must be supported by references to secondary sources, not your website. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Laos–Pakistan relations
Please note Burma-Pakistan is still an open discussion. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, although there are at least two keeps there and the AFD is now at over 7 days. I reverted my close - no harm done to allow the discussion to continue if merited. The AFD does look a bit funky with a redlink on top, but stranger things have happened I guess. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Falaco Soliton
Looks like a copy of to me. Do you any reason it shouldn't be deleted again? Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's a copyvio then nuke it. I just did a G13 restore on it, looked like a valid subject without much overlap with Soliton. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving draft articles with AFC templates into the main encyclopedia
I noticed you moved Jessica Cameron from its former home in Draft: into the main encyclopedia. You did not remove the AFC templates. I've done this for you. If you plan on doing more work in Articles for creation, consider using the "Yet Another AFC Helper Script" gadget, available in your preferences. Thanks. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that was me moving over a redirect by request - I left the article alone and notified the requester that it had been moved. I guess they didn't see my message. I didn't want to mess any AFC tracking or logs by removing something manually that I shouldn't have. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The only "loss" is that this was not tracked as an "accepted AFC submission." Since it was a move-without-review that is actually the correct outcome.  The helper script does additional "magic" when you "accept" an article, including putting an afc-accepted template on the talk page, updating the page that shows recent afc accepted submissions, etc.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I see how that works. Thank you for the explanation. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:IStockPhoto Logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:IStockPhoto 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ron P. Swegman
Dear FreeRangeFrog --

Hello.

RE: Ron P. Swegman

Ron P. Swegman does meet the Wikipedia guidelines for Creative Professionals:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. -- SWEGMAN HAS BEEN AND REMAINS SO in the areas of sport fishing and invasive plant species.

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. -- SWEGMAN IS A LEADING AMERICAN TENKARA FLY FISHER and is cited as such in fly fishing magazines and blogs in the US and in Europe.

The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. -- SWEGMAN IS THE AUTHOR OF TWO BOOKS and numerous popular magazine articles on fly fishing and invasive plants.

The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. -- OKAY, I CAN ADMIT SWEGMAN has NOT yet become a "significant monument.

To the end of adding reference to Swegman's relevance, the page has been significantly updated to show the growing stature of Ron P. Swegman as a Creative Professional (American angler and author along the lines of John Gierach, et al). The "Northern Snakehead Controversy" of 2013 placed him in the international media spotlight as an "angling expert" and regional authority of New York's invasive species. This new information has been noted.

Thank you.

Regards,

-- Piscator1

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.113.122 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question re Simon Low
Hi, I was not advertising Simon Low and don't know him. I recently came across an archive video on the Huffington Post that featured Simon in his previous role at RCA records where he was influential in promoting early house music. His role was so important that without it is quite possible that house music would not have made out from the black gay scene in Chicago. The people his signed to RCA records like Steve Silk Hurley has the first ever chart hits for house music. Whilst looking him up I came across a page that had previously been deleted, so I reinstated with the addition of his important role in music. to me the Yoga stuff is irrelevant but his role in music important given its historical context. What if I wrote a new page solely related to his musical role? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohnpalmer (talk • contribs) 14:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the angle you choose for the article, it's the language and tone that caused the deletion. I would recommend using AFC instead so other editors can evaluate the article before it goes "live". § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, that's probably becuase it wasn't my language, I just reinstated the previous text and added a bit about his influence on house music. I try again but write it from scratch and focus on his music industry work,

Possible Erroneous CSD
Hi FRF. I have some concerns about a speedy delete that you recently carried out on Baba Fakruddin. I took a look at it yesterday and removed the CSD tag from it on the grounds that the subject is an Islamic saint. Major religious figures of that nature are almost always considered notable. Then I took a look at the edit history and found a troubling background. It appears that the article had been the recent object of some EXTREMELY bold editing by user:Summichum. Basically he/she took the entire article and reduced it to a single sentence and deleted all of the sources. After which he tagged it for A-7. An examination of the editor's contrib log showed a pattern of similar editing on other articles about prominent Islamic figures including highly questionable A-7 nominations. I removed a number of the other tags. After this I left a cautionary note on his/her talk page and also dropped a line on the talk page of WP:ISLAM alerting them of the problem with the article. Now I pop on only to discover that Summichum apparently reapplied the CSD tag and the article has been deleted. Out of extreme deference to AGF I don't want to lob around any accusations. But this editor's recent actions seem improper, especially given the note I left on his/her talk page. That coupled with the limited history of edits, that seem to suggest a disproportionate degree of attention to prominent Islamic figures is making me sit up and ask some questions. Anyways, you are the Admin so I am leaving this in your hands. But at the least I think a close look should be taken at Baba Fakruddin and any other speedy deletes that Summichum may have prompted. Thanks for your time... -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article and talk page, and reverted to the last version before the surgery performed by User:Summichum. While I disagree that the subject is automatically notable, the deletion of content and subsequent speedy nomination is misleading at best, and like you I do see a possible agenda here. The correct venue for this should have been AFD. In any case, thank you for bringing this to my attention, I appreciate it. If you're investigating the user's edits and need help with admin stuff, do let me know. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the contrib log for today and the first one was Tawakkal Mastan Vali where he/she tagged the article for A7, another editor took the tag down and suggested a PROD instead (it does appear to have been unsourced), and then Summichum took down the PROD... BLANKED the article and reapplied the A7 tags. I reverted all of the recent edits and left a level 2 disruptive editing warning on his/her talk page. I am seriously concerned with this editor's history and I think it needs to be closely scrutinized by an Admin. I can't go back and check the edit history of articles deleted after being tagged for CSD, but at this point I think we need to treat any and all speedy deletions prompted by Summichum as potentially problematic until proven otherwise. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User:FreeRangeFrog I had deleted as most of the content was unsourced and full of myth and hearsay anecdotes which is not at all acceptable in Wiki. Most of the people I deleted are also not notable and the articles were in mess and unsourced content remained in them since a long time, hence better be deleted.Summichum (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Those were established articles, the correct procedure is to take them to AFD. You can make a judgment as to whether or not someone is asserting importance, which is the threshold for CSD. But you can't make a judgment as to whether or not someone is notable - that gets done in AFD, by consensus. Problem is, in these cases you removed all assertions to importance and then nominated for speedy deletion. I hope you understand that's wrong. § FreeRangeFrog croak 14:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I told you the articles had most of unreliable unsourced content which was removed, moreover the unreliable tas existed since a long time hence removal. Such poor quality articles which which have highly unreliable sources or mostly no sources should be removed. I appeal you to reconsider your decision and check each article and you will see that they are written like advertisement.Summichum (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * talk I am a new editor who learned wiki fast enough as I am also doing a PhD in a related field. Hence I like to experiment with the wiki features, so dont assume bad faith. The articles I deleted, all of them are poor quality unreliable and I still warrant their deletion.  I also request you to revisit those articles and remove the unsourced unreliable content and this how you will find that nothing remains.Summichum (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We are actually assuming this was a misunderstanding, which is why we're having this conversation here rather than on the administrators' noticeboard. I assume you are not familiar with the difference between importance and notability and how they apply to speedy deletion. I assume you didn't think blanking an article and then nominating it for deletion is plain wrong. All of which means you are not familiar with the deletion policy, which in turn means you should understand why I'm telling you that if you think these articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia you should be using AFD instead. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Suzannah_Lipscomb#book_dedication_to_her_husband
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Suzannah_Lipscomb#book_dedication_to_her_husband

Hiya, I support your removal, I opened a discussion platform on the chat page - please comment there, ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ameen Mian Qaudri
Thanks for restoring this page. Please could you also restore the redirects (this guy has many spellings/misspellings of his name in English). --Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC) --Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Deletion log); 08:28 . . AnomieBOT III (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Muhammed Quadri ‎(G8: Broken redirect to Ameen Mian Qaudri. If this bot is malfunctioning, please report it at User:AnomieBOT III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter)
 * (Deletion log); 08:28 . . AnomieBOT III (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Muhammad Amin Miya Quadri Barkaati ‎(G8: Broken redirect to Ameen Mian Qaudri. If this bot is malfunctioning, please report it at User:AnomieBOT III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter)
 * (Deletion log); 08:27 . . AnomieBOT III (talk | contribs) deleted page Ameen Mian Quadri ‎(G8: Broken redirect to Ameen Mian Qaudri. If this bot is malfunctioning, please report it at User:AnomieBOT III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter)
 * (Deletion log); 08:27 . . AnomieBOT III (talk | contribs) deleted page Syed Muhammad Ameen Mian Quadri ‎(G8: Broken redirect to Ameen Mian Qaudri. If this bot is malfunctioning, please report it at [User:AnomieBOT III/shutoff/BrokenRedirectDeleter)
 * Done. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops?
You seem to have removed my post the panda ₯’  00:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * C'mon, panda. Most of your posts at ANI do benefit from some time to cool down and think a bit, right? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gawd I hate edit conflicts, my apologies! § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Summichum
Hope you are having a good time with your adminship, that you achieved recently.

My problem with the editor Summichum is that they are not getting over the things that happened, and they have been proven to be either notable or neutral per our Wikipedia policies. They WP:Edit War all the time, they keep presenting their own point of view, they keep tagging established articles with the PROD tag after blanking, they keep trashing other editors by calling their edits "vandalism".

Please check the revision history of the page itself, 3 reverts under 24 hours. I didn't expected that Summichum would revert even after 2 reverts, but still they did it. User has been blocked multiple times for edit warring on similar pages. Kindly review.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 07:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the second to the bottom thread on my talk page. FTR I completely agree with your assessment. This editor's history clearly suggests an agenda that he/she is promoting through very aggressive editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , He has been blocked by Black Kite for 2 weeks. I never supported a block for him though, but he dig his own grave, check, while ignoring his own 3 reverts he considered a 2 reverts to be edit war. I don't know if they have got any agenda or anything similar to that, but I would like to see what FreeRangeFrog has to say about this issue. If there is no improvement in 2 weeks, we can bring it to Arbitration Committee.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 14:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Quite honestly I'm outside of my comfort zone here from a thematic perspective, and I do note that some of Summichum's contributions are OK and some of their concerns are valid vis-a-vis unsourced content, etc. but the speedy tags and now getting EW blocked doesn't bode well. We need to wait until they come back from the block and see if maybe we can reach a solution. For the time being I see the AFD they created has been (rightly) procedurally closed and the article restored so we're OK. I continue to feel this might be a combination of misplaced good faith and language barriers, but we do have to make sure there is no further disruption. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am feeling a bit more comfortable with things today. Not because he has been blocked (though I think that was appropriate), but because it is clear that he has now become a subject of attention for a large number of concerned editors and at least a few Admins. This means that it is very unlikely that he will be able to do much more damage, whether through ignorance or malice. And for now that is a satisfactory state of affairs. Once he comes off block we can work on raising his awareness level of how the project works and hopefully turn an unpleasant episode into a speed bump on the road to creating a good editor. Even if things don't work out that way though, I really am not a fan of banning editors unless they are just straight up vandals or complete @$$ hats. A topic ban is often the cure for an unrepentant POV/Agenda oriented editor. But with a little bit of luck we won't have to cross that bridge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem had the best opinion about this whole on going conflict. He was right that people of different religious sects are using wikipedia as battlefield. Lets see, you should check Sockpuppet investigations/Rukn950, a lot has been revealed. Report was originally opened by Summichum, but he is actually confessing that he is Spenceroodi. It means that both sides have broken some of the most basic rules of wikipedia? Well that's how I view it. I wouldn't really bother about making a full fledged report about Summichum's abuse of multiple accounts, maybe there is no need, or I should?  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 09:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have blocked User:Spenceroodi as a sock of Summichum used to get around the original block. Regardless of the outcome of the SPI, they are still blocked and should wait until that expires. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

about tag 10gtek
I'm 10Gtek company's CEO. I write a tag "10gtek" on wikipedia. why did u delete it. 10Gtek is my registered trademark. pls help me. tks
 * You'll want to read WP:COI then. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Rakhil Dolgorukov
Are you sure? I'm aware of this since early last year, this person claims to exists but after multiple research carried by a few IMDb contributors, we found nothing, just random images of models (including mail-order brides) which she claimed were her own pictures. I hope she didn't send her "acting class" certificate to OTRS to claim that she is real?. I honestly would remove that information, infact there is not a single picture of her with her "husband"..She has creating multiple accounts on social media sites to claim she is real but it has never been verified to be real.--Stemoc (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. The subject provided the source and I added it - if there is consensus that it is not reliable then it can be removed. By someone other than the SPA whose five edits consist solely on removing that bit of information, and ideally without demeaning commentary (of which there's been enough already in the talk page). WP:BLP applies everywhere, to everyone. I am acting solely as an intermediary. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Nadia Turner OTRS ticket
Could you explain a little what was in the OTRS that made the removal of her date of birth necessary, ? As background, for five years a series of IP addresses claimed that they were Nadia Turner and simply changed the birth year to either 1981 or 1982 and eventually one of the IP addresses was blocked twice for edit warring. Then User:Nadiaturner also popped up saying the same thing and then User:Tango&ozzy came along and said they were her manager. Originally the birth year was not sourced and I found three sources for 1977 and could find none for 1981 back then or now. The entire time all of this edit warring was going on, I consistently asked for a reliable source for the new birth year and was basically told trust me, I am Nadia, and for this possibly being Turner and her management, in five years the only thing they changed in the article was the birth year. I also created a conflict of interest that explains some of this at of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Nadia Turner. Any help regarding this issue would help me out, thank you, Aspects (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC).
 * By standing convention for BLPs we err on the side of caution and courtesy and remove the DOB when the subject asks us to, there are conflicting sources (I found some for 1977 and one for 1981), and the DOB is not integral to the biography to begin with. If this had landed at WP:BLP/N that's very likely what we would have done. That the vehicle is OTRS is just a result of them not understanding how Wikipedia works, making COI edits and accounts and edit warring, etc. If you want I would have no problem listing the article on the noticeboard to get some more opinions from the locals. As to the COI issue, since they did not make the edit it doesn't apply so whatever has happened in the past does not apply. We don't hold grudges :) § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could I ask what was the source for 1981 because I never saw any. The American Idol dead link can be seen at  and since American Idol does background checks and has had people ruled ineligible for their age in the past, I would think they would have the right information.  The MTV dead link was because the source was moved to .  The still good NBC link and her American Idol profile at  state she was 28 in 2005, which would have her born in 1977.  Also her own words can be heard and the graphic states 1977 in this youtube clip just before performing on the birth year themed night, . I just noticed that the last time it was changed it was to 1983, so all of these IPs/possibly Turner does not even know when she was born.  Also from the management edit request on the talk page: "Being in the entertainment business, youth is an important factor for the kind of roles Nadia Turner auditions for. We feel it is no ones business how old she is."  That to me shows that 1977 is correct, but that they do not want the accurately sourced information to be shown and they want to put their own false, unsourced information for their benefit. Aspects (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, I think it was an archived link. Plus there's the subject's claim. Keep in mind that while I understand your position vis-a-vis their edits to the article, I'm not advocating either DOB. I just removed it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Brian Vala Nahed
I created the AFD for all those IP users speaking against the article on its talk page, hopefully that'll help. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Sergei Ivanovich Vasiliev
Hello! The article, which has been recently put for deletion was kept, conclusion – "no consensus". However, my arguments for a few days were not commented by anyone, neither participants of the discussion (although, it was edited), nor administration. I have considered each source used in the article. Some were affiliate, some non-authoritative, and some did not comply with the WP: GNG rule "Significant coverage". I am not in any kind of relations with other participants of the discussion, this may be easily checked. Do hope for your comments and help. May be it is worth to put an article for deletion again, using my arguments and taking in account other people's opinion? Because the conclusion "no consensus" is not quite right: its absence or presence were not demonstrated. Arguments were simply ignored. Can you give any comments about arguments? VolgaCamper (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * AFDs are not for commenting on other people's opinions as to the viability of the article. That said, your arguments are OK but that doesn't mean they override the rest of the discussion or opinions. You can of course re-nominate since the outcome wasn't really clear. I'd check with the closing admin before you do so. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FreeRangeFrog, I've seen this message posted in varying ways to at least one other administrator's talk page. I think they may be 'admin shopping' in a way for them to delete the article. I, myself, contested the deletion and pointed out my reasons why. While I know you're not going to get involved in a content dispute, you should check the history of the page. It's full of sockpuppets and meatpuppets attempting to blank and remove content. Tutelary (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did notice that, thanks. Still, unless there's evidence of disruptive editing (e.g., an SPI or something like that) we have to at least let them know what they can do. Specifically my recommendation to contact the closing admin, since TKoH should me more familiar with the issue than me. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already done two sockpuppet investigations, see:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gdv777/Archive
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kliff93/Archive

Both were relating to the page. Requested page protection, got it. But again, just wanted to let you know. If you need a link to the other admin's page where they did it, I can link. (Though I'd have to find it.) Tutelary (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Well then, it will be up to the closing admin to allow that or not. Judging from those SPIs I'd say probably not. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to delete this article, so.. remove only the reference sources. Is it possible? Read the references' titles! Such a feeling that it have been chosen specifically for insults! VolgaCamper (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Very few of us are fluent in Russian, unfortunately. I'd suggest taking it here and see if there is consensus that your concerns are merited. Failing that, you can report it to the Administrator's Noticeboard but you'll have to be much more specific than claiming there's a problem with the reference titles. Quite frankly this is why I dislike biographies sourced entirely in languages other than English, but there is no policy that forbids it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I did no such thing, I mean 'admin shopping'. What should I do, if you're against? This article does not contain any useful information, just to insult a person and spoil his reputation. Imagine that there is the same article about you, and you can not remove it. It's obvious that it was created on a commercial basis. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia now for black PR and lies?VolgaCamper (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding to "MEF University" Page
To whom may it concern,

We created a page for our university but just realized that it's been deleted. We don't know why it's been deleted. I'd appreciate if you'd help me to recover that page, because it is important for our university to have a page on wikipedia.

Best regards, Baris Keser Head of Recruitment, MEF University — Preceding unsigned comment added by MEF Tanıtım (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As the deletion discussion lacked quorum, I have restored it. I've also notified the original nominator in case they feel the deletion rationale still stands and wish to re-nominate it. In the meantime however you are free to improve the article and address the original concerns that led to it being nominated. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Chopra
Maybe I can explain my perspective. I don't have any personal animus against Deepak Chopra, but I do find much of what he sells deeply troubling. He is one of a small number of high profile advocates of alternative medicine who are materially impeding scientific progress in weeding superstition, false claims and outright fraud out of healthcare. Not the worst offender (that would be perhaps Mike Adams or Mercola), but a part of a body of people who seem to believe in "different ways of knowing", such that when careful objective tests prove their claims to be false, they assert, in effect, that reality has it wrong.

Opposition to SAS81's demands is not founded on opposition to Chopra, it's founded on a wholehearted belief that in matters of science, the scientific method and scientific consensus are the only appropriate judge. It's particularly important in medicine because of the immense effort that was required to move away from patriarchal and arrogant practices, towards the science of evidence-based medicine. It is really only in the last 50 years that the words "in my experience" have come to be recognised as profoundly dangerous, and "according tot he best available evidence" have replaced them. There are dozens of examples, but perhaps the dogged persistence of radical mastectomy and axillary clearance is one of the better ones: this was a practice perpetuated by surgeons, a notoriously arrogant breed, for easily ten to fifteen years after it became clear that more conservative approaches were every bit as effective. They simply didn't see why getting rid of the cancer, root and branch, was not enough: that they had to deliver quality of life and self-image as well.

And then we get the hippy dippy new agers coming along and promoting homeopathy and mind-body woo as if it has parity of validity, citing Chopra as an authority. Medicine, which has been working to get rid of the authority figure, is up against it here: charismatic frauds are well known to make much better TV than earnest and careful scientists. Ask people to name a doctor involved in vaccines and they are more likely to name Andrew Wakefield than Paul Offit.

So there are two subjects in one, as indeed is the case with Chopra's friend Rupert Sheldrake: one is the biography, the other is the mythos around scientifically invalid beliefs. Unfortunately, Chopra's public persona is intimately tied to the mythos, and any intrusion of ugly fact around his often absurd health claims is seen by his supporters as undermining the man.

There is a very simple test you can apply to see if someone's critical faculties are working or not. Anybody who believes in homeopathy after reading our article, or who promotes homeopathy independent of reading it, lacks sufficient grounding in reality and critical thinking to be a reliable judge of anything. Homeopathy is the young Earth creationism of medicine: the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe. Chopra embraces it, promotes it. He states that "professional skeptics who are self-appointed vigilantes dedicated to the suppression of curiosity". Actually this is the absolute reverse of the truth: once you take belief out of the equation, you get into the business of real curiosity, finding out what's actually going on and why so many people believe things that patently are not true. Bill Nye does this brilliantly, so does Randi when he investigates fake psychics, faith healers and so on.

Sorry to be long winded (what else do you expect from me), but this is one of those cases where we should take to heart Jimbo's message about "lunatic charlatans". Chopra is not a lunatic, but he is a True Believer, and while we can certainly document True Believers and their beliefs, we must, as a core part of our educational mission, stop short of implying that their beliefs have any empirical validity. This is easily grasped with religion more generally, but faith healing modalities such as Chopra's sit in an area where people who consider themselves rational, do not care to engage in self-examination. After all, if we start questioning mind-body healing and homeopathy, we might end up not believing that a daily multivitamin is essential for health. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of this, I like Chopra and his kind less than you. My point on the COI noticeboard is that we need to be more helpful and less aggressive towards these topics and the people who are looking for neutrality. There's a little gaggle of POV warriors that have control over a lot of these and any attempt to fix them is invariably met with resistance and petty harassment (look at Dean Radin for a fresh example). And that's for an experienced editor - I cannot begin to think what it's like for the average Joe. We need to be better and rise above these systemic biases of ours. We use them to justify assholery and intransigence too often. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree at all, the problem here is that the user is very insistent, and in those circumstances the replies tend to become increasingly blunt. I guess the fundamental problem is that we lack a formal method for stopping circular arguments. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * My ears are burning. I resemble these remarks. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in promoting Chopra or Sheldrake's views but there must be a better way of dealing with a difference of opinion among editors than the situation that currently exists. I look at talk page discussions and there is little WP:AGF and a lot of heat and hostility, rather than cooperation and explanation. Discussion of these subjects turns into "us vs. them" situation where if you are not critical, then you're accused of having a WP:COI and your views are dismissed and, often, ridiculed. Not every editor who is sympathetic to these subjects' views is a "POV-pusher".
 * Personally, my interest is not in articles about topics viewed as "pseudoscience" but in WP:BLP. I think we have the obligation to treat living people fairly although it may be necessary to note that some of their ideas are not accepted by mainstream science. It seems like the sticking point is often what to include in the lede paragraphs and the insistence of including in this section that the individual is a pseudoscientist or believes in pseudoscience or a mention that the individual's views are repudiated by the mainstream scientists. I think the lede should be a more neutral summary of the individual's life and views and that this criticism can be included in the section where these unaccepted opinions are described. This is particularly true in cases where the subject has been involved in a number of different areas and their "pseudoscience" views are just one aspect of a larger body of work (not their primary contribution). Liz  Read! Talk! 12:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is pretty much what you'd expect under the circumstances.
 * For a crank - say, someone who advocates for cold fusion - getting their POV reflected as The Truth&trade; in Wikipedia is of paramount importance. For someone like Chopra, Google extracts the first sentence of the lede in search results, so being positively protrayed there is also of paramount importance, though perhaps for commercial reasons as much as anything else. That means endless pressure to spin the articles. Often there is an insidious ratchet effect with a succession of small edits gradually transforming an article from neutrality to uncritical promotion. Most Wikipedians have far less emotional investment in content, and hopefully no financial investment at all. It's an inequality of motivation that leaves an often small group of people policing a large number of articles against relentless POV-pushing (WP:CIVPUSH or not). It leads to burnout in many cases. Vandal patrolling can be the same but there are many more vandal patrollers and vandals tend not to be so determined. [{WP:ARBPSCI]] was an extremely important case that has made it much easier to maintain neutrality on these articles, but it's still the same old faces every time and very often you get the same old faces in opposition, since there are a decent number of editors who support fringe ideas, alternative medicine, parapsychology and other nonsense.
 * If you can think of a way of fixing this, please go right ahead and suggest it. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't think of a way. I fully agree with you, as I've said before. Wikipedia is the great equalizer - suddenly these people are faced with a freely-editable and open medium where viable criticism is condensed and presented for the world to see, exacerbated by the fact that the principal search engines tend to place a high amount of trust on us. Before you had to go out and buy books or subscribe to magazines. Now all it takes a quick Googling and you're reading about their idiocies. I see this as equivalent to the old tendency of religions to try to suppress any criticism or sharing of objective information about them to avoid having their flocks think for themselves. We cost them fans and adherents. And I understand there's always a hard push from their constituencies to sanitize the articles. I understand the need for dedicated watchers on the articles. What I don't and cannot accept is the loss of balance and neutrality. It's like our governments telling us we're all safer thanks to all their oppressive surveillance! We cannot and should not sacrifice the Pillars just to tell people how quacky the quacks are. But again, I don't have a solution. I don't think consensus works here and I believe the POV warriors have wised up to the system and carefully avoid pushing farther than the system will let them before the shit hits the fan. What I do know is I'm going to stay well away from these in the future. I have better things to worry about, frankly. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, like I said, we should always edit as if we have the eyes of history looking over one shoulder and the subject's lawyers looking over the other. And the more the subject sucks, the more rigorous we should be about that. If only the homeopaths and mind-body woomeisters would admit they are peddling religion not science, we'd have much less of a problem, but they use sciencey-sounding language and that presents a pressing problem because their "science" (in reality usually pseudoscience) is set against real science as if the two have parity. Chopra is an entertainer, first and foremost. He writes books that help people feel better about themselves, but the pretence is that there is some sort of deeper insight, when actually there really is not. You can't cure disease by wishing it away. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnbbp
Hola. Could you please block Special:Contributions/Johnbbp, the creator of article Michael Dieng, which you recently speedily deleted? The account is a blatant VOA. Hoops gza (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see enough disruption there to merit a block at this point. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Neck Deep
Hi Frog, hope this finds you well. Have a look at Neck Deep, which you previously semied one week: a longer semi is merited. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 11:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi'd for one month, after that we might want to try pending changes. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sincerely appreciated
I really appreciate you, barek, and chess stepping up in that situation. However, as is evident by the edits undid here, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Katieh5584&diff=607945448&oldid=607944471, he has no intention of abiding by the policy, only ignoring it. Looking at his usertalkpage history and archives, this is a persistent problem for him. Someone needs to draw attention to it. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Katieh5584
I've warned Katieh5584 about her actions on A delicious pot pie's page, and she's removed my warnings, so I just wanted to let you know that she knows that what she's doing in against Wikipedia policy (your warning wasn't the first) and I will report her to AN3 if she continues to revert A delicious pot pie's edits on his own talk page. 123chess456 (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, she provided a "read receipt" of her own. Let's not pile on. Things happen, her edits are in good faith but she does need to remember that 3RR applies to everyone and could conceivably get her blocked. But hopefully we can avoid that. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Barak actually gave her a final warning, and she continued to edit war on A delicious pot pie's talk page. What should we do now? Although now, the edit war is pretty much over, so blocking her wouldn't serve any real purpose. 123chess456 (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ANEW would be the place, if you wish to pursue it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

How would one request administrator attention on him based on this and his past actions? Autism or not, he frequently comes under fire for coldly requesting everything be speedily deleted, overusing templates, responding with no personal comments whatsoever, and treating new users like trash. The results are what you saw happen on my talk page. The only reason you don't see more complaints against him on his talk page is because it's semi-protected and he deletes everything. Something needs to be done. I really appreciate your and chess's help, by the way. --A delicious pot pie (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be WP:ANI. § FreeRangeFrog croak 19:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Violation of protection policy on User talk:Katieh5584
I see you've semiprotected Katieh5584's user talk page by user request, which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy, because according to PP, "A user's request to have his or her own talk page protected is not a sufficient rationale to protect the page." Could you please unprotect the page, or give a sufficient rationale for protection? Most of the edits by new and IP users are poorly formatted questions about Wikipedia, which get instantly reverted anyways. There doesn't seem to be lots of vandalism. 123chess456 (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My protection wasn't based on a request by the user, it was a result of personal attacks (which were so problematic they had to be revdeled). My question to her about protecting the page was just a courtesy, she never requested it. Now, there's a sort of catch-22 here where the disruptive edits, while not justified in any way, are partly a result of the user's inability to communicate with the editors who are the targets of her actions. But I'm waiting to see how the ANI discussion turns out before I unprotect. That said, any admin can remove the protection so you can request so either here or in the ANI discussion itself. I would wait to see if some kind of agreement about Katie's edits can be reached (perhaps a temporary restriction on certain types of CSD tags for example) before we move forward. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User talk pages can be protected provided there is a means for IPs and unconfirmed editors to contact them, typically on a an unprotected subpage such as User talk:Katieh5584/Unprotected talk page. See a list of semiprotected talk pages. This is per the policy that you quote 123chess456.--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted on Katieh5584's talk page a recommendation to create an unprotected sub page. She hasn't responded. 123chess456 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That she hasn't responded is of course part of the problem... In any case, I do agree that permanent protection is inappropriate so I've removed it. Hopefully she will comment in the ANI thread. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)