The Little Blue Frog

Ribbit?

Sources, examples...

Two examples are not a source, and neither are two million. Theoretically, if we claim that "The term XYZ is mostly used in the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, in Canada" we need to cite a published document that states that the term XYZ is mostly used in the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, in Canada. Such documents may indeed exist; see for example the entry for railroad in the Chambers Dictionary. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 01:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there's been two subsequent misunderstandings at Admission to practice law:

• There's a main point about "law license" being in use in the U.S. and Canada (the claim the other editor has already deleted twice, for reasons unfathomable). I thought your edit summary about 2 examples not being a source applied to my sourcing of this one, so I updated it because I think 2 examples from 300+ at the American Bar Association Journal alone (plus the governmental examples from the NYC courts and the DOJ, etc.) *are* a source here: one can't say a term isn't in use or proper when it's shown repeatedly in use in court documents and legal articles.
• There's an ancillary point about relative usage, "prevalent ... and to a lesser extent". This one is indeed trickier to source, but it wasn't what I was talking about. Besides,[1] I left your two Fact tags on it, and applied to the other claim a hidden comment naming what I thought was your request.

Hope that clears it. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 18:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

I'm not an arbitrator so I can't provide what you're asking for, but the language, to me, is fairly clear. It specifically mentions "bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise", and "mass edits" (which should be anything done at a pace that would seem to indicate the edits are being made carelessly; my rule of thumb is any edit made in less than 30 seconds from the last edit made). If you believe someone is violating the injunction you should mention it to them on their talk page, and if they continue, report them at WP:AN/AE so an administrator may review and re-warn or block as appropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I see you did just that. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 19:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Performing Garage

On March 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Performing Garage, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Interesting topic! Thanks for working on the article. Royalbroil 03:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Annual Bulletin (Comparative Law Bureau)

On March 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Annual Bulletin (Comparative Law Bureau), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for American Bar Association Journal

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article American Bar Association Journal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood and Dec

First off, let me say that I respect anybody who knows about "The Little Blue Frog." It's one of Miles Davis' more obscure fusion tracks, available only (as far as I know) on The Complete Bitches Brew Sessions. That aside, I'll say this: any mention of Ed Wood is completely irrelevant to Francis Dec article. Yes, I've read the discussion, but I'll revert your stuff till you supply a satisfactory rationale for including Ed Wood in the article. Peace. C1k3 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not use threats such as "I'll revert your shit till",[2] (even if you edit them out afterwards), as they break the WP:CIVIL policy. Words such as "respect" and "peace" become meaningless or hypocritical when slapping someone with such aggression. As for Francis E. Dec, I have already provided you with two rationales on the talk page and you didn't give any counter-argument: you simply repeated your question and went on threatening me here of an edit war. Please discuss what is the problem with this half sentence at the Dec article, and why my rationales wouldn't apply.
• For "The Little Blue Frog", cf. the top of my user page for a stub text I'll develop some day – I'm saving it there so as to keep open the possibility of a Did you know nomination (5-day deadline). — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"your shit" is not the greatest phrase to use but I do see that C1k3 did apologise. See my comments at Talk:Francis E. Dec#Use of "Not unlike Ed Wood". Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joe Riley (artist)

On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joe Riley (artist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger templates

Please note my reversions of your edits and discuss this matter at Template talk:Merge before continuing to perform them. Thank you. —David Levy 16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This was already asked and reported as a bug on the talk page since the "date" parameter was never showing up on those templates. I was just being bold fixing those templates, no need for the bureaucracy really. Brought it to the talk page. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit)

If that's what the person was referring to, he/she was mistaken in believing that the template was broken. The insertion date is intentionally not displayed, as there is longstanding consensus to keep these tags as small as possible. (Your edits added an additional line for many users.)

The merger categories are divided by date to make them more manageable. If we decide that these dates should be displayed in the articles, we can simply make the categories visible at the bottoms of pages. —David Levy 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

All other tag templates display the date. Merger templates are lingering for years without reason or discussion because the tagging date isn't displayed. Having a small hidden category at the bottom wouldn't replace the visible date within the header. Anyway that's not for my talk page but for Template talk:Merge with some additional community input. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1.You need to understand that merger tags are considered less important than most (because they do not indicate inherent problems with the actual content), with a large segment of the community (not including me, for the record) not even wanting them displayed within articles at all. As such, making them as prominent as they are already is a compromise.

2. I'm referring to the option of unhiding the date so that it would appear at the bottom. Why, in your opinion, would that be insufficient? And what behavioral difference do you advocate? If you believe that we should simply remove merger tags after a certain duration, a bot could handle that. —David Levy 16:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Answered at Template talk:Merge — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Art Journals

Journals are a type of magazine (or on some definitions, the other way around) & it is pointless to have two small categories seperated in the already excessive number of sub-cats in the main category. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but on Wikipedia, journals i.e. academic journals are completely differentiated from magazines and are two different forms of periodicals, apples and oranges (briefly: journals are written by external scholars and peer-reviewed by an editorial board, magazines are written by internal staff and edited by an editor). There is a whole established scheme of parallel hierarchies for journals and magazines, such as:

• Category:Publications by frequency
  • Category:Journals by publication frequency
    • Category:Weekly journals
  • Category:Magazines by publication frequency
    • Category:Weekly magazines
  • Category:Newspapers by publication frequency
    • Category:Weekly newspapers

Etc. Please do not conflate journals with magazines and start mixing the categories, as there are also issues of NPOV and offense about saying that one is a subset of the other. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 22:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That is why the categories are different. However it does not mean that both should feed into a topic main cat. Must one set up Category:Media about art to avoid this pedantry? Please note, btw, that in WP cats "Art" = "Visual art", not all The Arts". Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Some categories indeed have "Media about X" or "Publications about X" or "Periodicals about X" (e.g. Category:Media about film or Category:Media about comics) to host the many subcats for magazines, journals, newspapers, websites, books, CD-ROM/DVD, etc. Others simply let "X journals" and "X magazines" in their main cat, as they are different content for different publics. It depends on how many medias subcat you have or expect on the topic. And please note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Journals is not a subset of Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines, and it's not pedantry to distinguish journal/magazine, acronym/initialism, endnote/footnote, composition/song, apple/orange, on an encyclopedia. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 23:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summaries

Your edit summaries [3] are extremely inappropriate, particularly since they were all made after I already explained policy was in my favor on the deletions in response to your complaint on my talk page. Additionally, only one page would need to be in a category to avoid speedy deletion, so I can think of no logical reason you used that summary past the first page for each category other than to try and stir things up. VegaDark (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cats

Thanks for letting me know. I fixed them. Cheers.Broadweighbabe (talk) 06:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Donna Kossy

On April 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Donna Kossy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ritchie

That hook looks good as well. I prefer the other one though, has a slightly better feel to it IMO, though if you disagree you can ptu the other one in. Wizardman 17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no right to disagree, really, since I'm neither the creator nor the nominator. It was just to let you have two options instead of a single hook, whichever you chose. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: Forgot one point, though: the original hook is rather negative, the alt hook is based on something positive. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Abigail Adams

Thanks for catching and fixing that vandalism.If it gets bad again we should probably protect it through May, the end of the school year. But so far the vandalism hasn't been so frequent as to require protection. Let's keep an eye on it.   Will Beback  talk  18:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was worried by the fact vandalism came back as soon as your protection expired, and also by its deviousness: not the easy-to-spot swearing, but disinformation that could easily stay there for months. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cui Qun

I left a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated removal of annotated unresolved issue tags. Please go there to chat. Benjwong (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. And note that your removal of unresolved issue tags is considered vandalism and restoration of issue tags doesn't count for 3RR. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 04:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We are continuing over at Talk:Cui Qun. Please join in. Benjwong (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

The Little Blue Frog, Candlewicke has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for sorting out my faulty DYK hook in my absence. Much appreciated. Cheers. :) --candle•wicke 19:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad it was useful :-) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 09:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your DYK revert

Thanks for your note pointing out the DYK criteria and explaining Matisse's comment for me. I do know the criteria and I also think I understand Matisse's comment - I just disagree. I think you may have misunderstood my edit. I'm not confused about the criteria, but I have assessed the article as meeting those criteria. The article's author has added far more text than just a list of wins as provided by the source website. The events in the website list have been summarised and each event included has been made into a complete sentence in the article - therefore it is no longer a list. However, the author formatted each sentence as a separate paragraph making the article look messy. I reformatted these and brought connected ideas together to form paragraphs. Thus dealing with the objection.

The DYK process is designed to encourage editors to create and expand content - it is not some type of general article quality review. The DYK criteria are deliberately inclusive to make the barrier to entry low for new editors. Arbitrary failing of nominations when they actually meet the DYK rules will drive participants away from DYK and perhaps from the project.

Also please don't delete my DYK assessments without discussing with me first - this is very impolite. Even if you think an editor has made a mistake - don't refactor their comments without discussion. If you disagree with my comment, then discuss it, don't change it. WP:BRD applies to article edits, not to comments by other editors. However, I am not interested in beginning a revert war over something as petty as DYK assessments. I would appreciate it very much if you revert your own change to my comment and redact your assessment of this article. Matisse did not fail the article, it was put 'on hold' because of an objection. The objection was dealt with by me and the article reassessed as ready for DYK. Your edits removing my approval of the article and marking the article as failing the DYK criteria came later and are seriously out of process - I really suggest you reconsider. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Mark Pawson

A tag has been placed on Mark Pawson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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. MLauba (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jo Riley

On April 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jo Riley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty). For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Proposed deletion of LegalZoom

The article LegalZoom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet notability requirements.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

re Outsider art

re this diff, where did you get the 1961 date for disbarment? His article (Francis E. Dec) gives a 1959 date, and so do all other sources that I have seen. Herostratus (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:BLP improvereferences listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:BLP improvereferences. Since you had some involvement with the Template:BLP improvereferences redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ook!

Hello, The Little Blue Frog. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Ook!, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

KSFT ^(t|c) 03:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Don Luther listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Don Luther. Since you had some involvement with the Don Luther redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Canada-centric

A tag has been placed on Category:Canada-centric requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"Saint Frances E" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saint Frances E. Since you had some involvement with the Saint Frances E redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Saint Frances E." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Saint Frances E.. Since you had some involvement with the Saint Frances E. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Richhoncho (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"Abe Books.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Abe Books.com and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27#Abe Books.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"Poee.org" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Poee.org has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5 § Poee.org until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"POEE.org" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect POEE.org has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5 § POEE.org until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)