User talk:Wisefroggy/Archive 1

Practical Devices Corporation
A tag has been placed on Practical Devices Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Practical Devices Corporation and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Practical Devices Corporation
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Practical Devices Corporation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non-notable company

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Orange Mike  |   Talk  01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Practical Devices Corporation
I have nominated Practical Devices Corporation, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Practical Devices Corporation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Orange Mike  |   Talk  03:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Practical Devices Corporation
A tag has been placed on Practical Devices Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Alexius08 (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

the eXile
Thanks for your message. I'm not sure what's different from the previous version of the section. The problem is that you are basically fact checking an article yourself, and citing the sources you used in the fact checking. That's classic OR. Would it be possible to find some reliable secondary source (newspaper, TV, statement by public figure) that has made this same analysis?

Also, after looking at the article again, I'm not sure I agree with/fully understand your analysis. Levine's article seems to mention both an EPA recommendation of 0.01 ppb (paragraph 2) and the fact that the limit is 10 ppb as you suggest (paragraph 3). So I'm not sure there's any inaccuracy there. Can you please explain what you mean in more detail? Perhaps the talk page of the article would be best, since then other editors can see it/ join in.

I'll leave the material in for now. Best regards, dsol (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

the eXile fact-checking continued
Wisefroggy, I'm from Hesperia, near Victorville so allow me put in my two cents here. I agree with dsol. This is clearly OR, fact checking that not just splits hairs but is of dubious factuality. Quoting from the blog post: "The EPA recommends that there be no more than 0.02 ppb (parts per billion) in drinking water... In Victorville, most recent tests show a concentration of 11 ppb. That’s a 1,100 times over the limit! Let me repeat that: the concentration of arsenic in Victorville’s water is ONE THOUSAND TIMES over the threshold of safety." Notice the "EPA recommends". I'm involved in water stuff around here and know that there is a LEGAL limit and a RECOMMENDED limit. Two very different things. EPA's LEGAL limit is 10ppb. It's RECOMMENDED limit is 0.2ppb It is called "EPA Human Health Water Quality Criteria: Water quality criteria set by the US EPA provide guidance for states and tribes authorized to establish water quality standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to protect human health. These are non-enforceable standards based upon exposure by both drinking water and the contribution of water contamination to other consumed foods. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." Look it up. Over .2 is over threshold of safety, but NOT illegal. Deleting your contribution. --Regulator22 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Shucking (June 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Girth Summit was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Shucking and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Shucking, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shucking Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Girth_Summit&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Shucking reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Girth Summit  (blether) 15:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Creston Valley Advance Editorial, August 14, 2000.png listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Creston Valley Advance Editorial, August 14, 2000.png, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Creston Valley Advance Editorial, August 14, 2000.png
Thanks for uploading File:Creston Valley Advance Editorial, August 14, 2000.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) 02:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Pls join an ongoing talk about recent structural changes to the prime minister's article Talk:Justin Trudeau.-- Moxy 🍁 02:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Moxy 🍁 15:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Your recent editing history at Justin Trudeau shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – bradv  🍁  15:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau
Thank you for reaching out to me. I left a message with User talk:Ymblanter, who locked the article. I was disappointed to see User:Littleolive oil sneak their edit back in after I trimmed it of puffery, corrected the data, and removed the primary source. Disappointing indeed. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the support Magnolia677. The flagrantly-biased whitewashing/censorship by User:Littleolive oil and User:Moxy is, frankly, disgraceful;  IMO they have done a disservice to the entire Wikipedia community.

November 2019
Your addition to Jim Karygiannis has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Shucking concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shucking, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 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) 01:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Shucking


Hello, Wisefroggy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Shucking".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Snowycats (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zuby (rapper) (June 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GoingBatty was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zuby (rapper) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zuby (rapper), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Zuby_(rapper) Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoingBatty&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Zuby_(rapper) reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GoingBatty (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zuby (rapper) has been accepted
 Zuby (rapper), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Zuby_(rapper) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Sulfurboy (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Spence
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Theresa Spence. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Hi Wisefroggy! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Theresa Spence that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. How you can call those minor edits is beyond me.  Doug Weller  talk 13:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 13:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Theresa Spence reverts‎
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Theresa Spence‎ ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

June 2020
Your recent editing history at Theresa Spence shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Morneau personal assets
I reviewed the sources you provided. Morneau's assets are never referred to as "trust funds" so I looked to the public registry, which notes both the blind trust, and the corporation holding his villa in France. Both of these are covered in the ethical controversy section.

While opposition frequently refer to Morneau's assets as a trust fund, there is no credible reporting which I could find referring to them as such. Recognizing the amount of shares he held in Morneau shepell, and how they were held is both public information and well sourced, I moved this to the relevant section under Ethical Controversy. If you feel additional information is needed I recommend we add it there, as it seems based on several sources on the page his assets have evolved over the years.

I'm not suggesting your additions are not well sourced, just that there is more recent information which contradicts them and shows his financial assets have since been divested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MRAB2015 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MRAB2015: If "assets have since been divested", then you should add that in (with citation), instead of deleting all record of the asset.Wisefroggy (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wisefroggy: Please read the section I am referring to. This is clearly stated under the ethics controversy, and has been since your original edit. Copied here for clarity:

"Morneau held over 2 million shares of Morneau Shepell through an Alberta numbered company, 1193536 Alberta Ltd.[53]. In the Fall of 2017, it was revealed that based on the advise of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Morneau did not place his assets in a blind trust upon being appointed Minister of Finance, something he was incorrectly reported to have done.[54] Responding to criticism, Morneau sold the remainder of his shares in his former company, Morneau Shepell (donated a portion of the profits to charity), and placed the remainder of his assets in a blind trust.[55][56] [57] In 2018, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner cleared Morneau of Opposition accusations that he had benefited from insider trading.[58][59]"

MRAB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Accusations: Justin Trudeau
Please do not accuse editors of whitewashing. You removed an entirely accurate edit created by one editor in favor of your own. That's not a particularly collaborative move. Further don't link me to essays; they are opinions and hold zero credence in terms of policy and guidelines. Finally, note that summarizing rather than including every detail is not whitewashing but an attempt to adhere to WP:WEIGHT. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Jessica Yaniv; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –  bradv  🍁  18:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

RfC at JY
Hey, I know you've made comments on the talk, but noticed you haven't actually voted in the RfC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jessica_Yaniv#Proposal_(RfC). CatCafe (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tagging at V-22 Osprey
Please review the section at MOS:LEADCITE about text in the lead being covered by cited text in body of the article. Discuss further on the article's talk page, if needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau
Hi, I noticed that you recently edited the Justin Trudeau Wikipedia article. Please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and join the discussion. Thank you,Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Freedom Convoy 2022
Your edits are bordering on being disruptive. This for example, is already sourced in the body of the article, and more sources were trivially easy to find with a simple internet search. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)