User talk:Leptus Froggi

Welcome!

Hello, Leptus Froggi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About To Escape the Stars

Hi Leptus Froggi. Just an observation. It might be a good idea to write an article about the author - that might start to address some of the book notability concerns. --Shirt58 (talk) 07:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I thought that might be part of the issue. I had decided not to create that author's article, first, because the author's info is mostly non-online, or non-free, so will take an unknown amount of time and effort. Leptus Froggi (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Grin. I'm pleased with that. Just so long as they don't stage a "WWE wrestler body slams Wikipedia editor in reverse" event. (Talk:WWE) Pffff, nice. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - ^{(Chocolate Cakes)} 14:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you for letting me know. Personally, I'm neutral/ambivalent about the situation: on the one hand, it might be informative to mention a researcher's (personal) opinion of the subtopic, but, on the other hand, by including someone's personal point of view, the neutrality of the article risks being compromised. Either way, I hope the situation is resolved as peacefully as possible.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This will not be resolved by just dropping by every other week and removing sourced content. If it continues without diuscussion, I'll contact the admins. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the admins, now. I'm fed up with your reverting without proper reasoning. Your edits insert an off-topic, biased and unencyclopedic opinion into an article. Leptus Froggi (talk) 09:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to woolly mammoth

Regarding your edits on Woolly mammoth, please gain consensus on the talk page for your desired change rather than slow edit warring. Also please use edit summaries that describe the edit rather than making combative comments such as [1] and [2]. Keep the focus on the content rather than the contributor. Vsmith (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll attack anyone who is misusing Wikipedia for their personal goals. I don't need the "consensus" of an in-crowd who has decided to misuse an article for their own purposes. A bad edit is a bad edit. Period. Leptus Froggi (talk) 09:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Adrian Lister, dude. Calm down.FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post POV tags on articles

unless you can clarify your issues on the talk page. If you wish to discuss your problems with Slender Man, I have posted a section on the talk page. Serendi ^pod ous 10:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

Your recent editing history at Ice Bucket Challenge shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD 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. Softlavender (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not started an edit war. I made a change according to long-standing MOS and Wiki practice, and it was casually reverted, with improper justification. I also stated carefully in the edit notes that I intend to follow proper channels to resolve this. Quote: ""viral" is defined by Websters as "quickly and widely spread", i.e., in Wiki terms it's unverifiable and WP:PEACOCK. (I will escalate this if necessary.)" End quote.

Using the word "viral" is questionable on several counts:

- That it's a neologism and also puffery and weasel (WP:FLOWERY, WP:WEASEL), meaning, according to Webster "quickly and widely spread or popularized." Practically everything on the internet is widely spread, etc., so using "viral" in the context of internet posts is redundant puffery.

- That stipulating "viral" adds any encyclopedic information to the article topic.

- That TVNZ News is a reliable source, and that the unattributed 130 word article is a reliable source. As opposed to being, say, what it apparently is: A plug for the Cancer Society. "If you complete the challenge then you only have to donate $10." http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/charities-benefit-viral-ice-challenge-6023429"

- I've seen "viral" removed from a number of articles, and never once seen it permanently replaced. Therefore, I'm acting according to Wiki practice and policy. Leptus Froggi (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of To Escape the Stars for deletion

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sarrail (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]