User talk:Froglich

"Wikipedia barnstars are the party participation medals of narcissistic sociopaths." -- Froglich

I Have The Power! (a rant by "Tycho", of Penny Arcade)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has some issues. As a model of how and where distributed intellect fails, it's almost shockingly comprehensive. When we were first considering making Epic Legends Of The Hierarchs available as a publicly manageable satirical metanarrative, we dropped the basic timeline on Wikipedia because I liked the way their software went about things. Of course, a phalanx of pedants leapt into action almost immediately to scour - from the sacred corpus of their data - our revolting fancruft. That's okay with me. I wasn't aware they thought they were making a real encyclopedia for big people at the time, and if I had, I'd have sought out one of the many other free solutions. I had seen the unbelievably detailed He-Man and Pokémon entries and assumed - like any rational person would - that Pokémaniacs were largely at the rudder of the institution. I am almost certain that - while they prune their deep mine of trivia - they believe themselves to be engaged in the unfolding of humanity's Greatest Working. Responses to criticism of Wikipedia go something like this: the first is usually a paean to that pure democracy which is the project's noble fundament. If I don't like it, why don't I go edit it myself? To which I reply: because I don't have time to babysit the Internet. Hardly anyone does. If they do, it isn't exactly a compliment. Any persistent idiot can obliterate your contributions. The fact of the matter is that all sources of information are not of equal value, and I don't know how or when it became impolitic to suggest it. In opposition to the spirit of Wikipedia, I believe there is such a thing as expertise. The second response is: the collaborative nature of the apparatus means that the right data tends to emerge, ultimately, even if there is turmoil temporarily as dichotomous viewpoints violently intersect. To which I reply: that does not inspire confidence. In fact, it makes the whole effort even more ridiculous. What you've proposed is a kind of quantum encyclopedia, where genuine data both exists and doesn't exist depending on the precise moment I rely upon your discordant fucking mob for my information.

Dark Age History: Tilting at Windmills in the Wikipedia Big Lie Factory

High explosives and energetics Hi Froglich, It is my understanding that high explosives are not particularly more energetic than low explosives. They explode in a shorter time (they detonate rather than deflagrate), but they do not provide significantly more energy per unit mass. In any case I explained that concern on the talk page when I added the {{dubious}} tag, so it would be good to engage the issue there rather than simply removing the tag. --Trovatore (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Croak! (Taken care of.)--Froglich (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC) George Bernard Shaw's "Jewish Question" (Shaw) was a very complicated person who still arouses great passion. The current article is a sincere attempt by a number of editors, over a considerable length of time, to present a balanced summary of the man, while not glossing over some of his more bizarre views and sayings. Totally changing the POV of an article like this may even be justified, but please raise any questions about the current (balanced?) view, and your desire to bring us into line with (say) Conservapedia, on the talk page for the article, rather than making wholesale changes - which are bound to be reverted, if not by me then by some "friends of Shaw" who are much less critical of him than me! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Speaking of his "bizarre views" which we should not be glossing over.... "We ought to tackle the Jewish question by admitting the right of States to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable, but insisting that they do it as humanely as they can afford to..." -- (Shaw, to Beatrice Webb, February 1938) --Froglich (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC) So bring these things up on the talk page. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC) That is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia.--Froglich (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Memory hole preservation clause Here is the section various persons keep removing (other editors are requested to boldly revert such deletions): Eugenics (snip) At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said: We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ...A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them. Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live. In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself. The Jewish question Shaw would publicly expound desires for "humane" extermination into the late 1930s, even as Germany was already well entrenched under the sway of Adolf Hitler (whose antisemitic autobiography Mein Kampf had been in print since 1923, and of which Shaw was still supportive of well into the War.), with anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany having escalated steadily since 1933 (in accordance with the Nazi Party's "25-Step Program" published in 1920), with German Jews stripped of citizenship in 1935. In private correspondence to the Fabian socialist Beatrice Webb on February 6, 1938, Shaw was unequivocal in defense of government-orchestrated extermination of "undesirables", but concerned with portrayal and avoidance of embarrassment: We ought to tackle the Jewish question by admitting the right of States to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable, but insisting that they do it as humanely as they can afford to, and not to shock civilisation by such misdemeanours as the expulsion and robbery of Einstein." In the wake of the Holocaust (during which the use of "humane" Zyklon B was prominent), some of Shaw's defenders would either confuse or downplay his pre-WWII statements as satirical in nature or actually mockery of the eugenics movement. Notes trayvon martin I've been watching your work on the Trayvon Martin articles and I'm satisfied that you're alert to the problem of bias. You will be pleased to learn that regarding the Tea Party movement article, your suggestion regarding mention of Karl Denninger is being acted upon.[1] The article was an enormous mess when I started working on it a few months ago. Extremely partisan and tendentious editors were trying to WP:OWN it. It had become a collection of what I describe as "Daily Kos cruft," which is a collection of negative trivia about a conservative person or group that members of progressive online communities such as DKos find amusing, but are otherwise useless. A lot of that stuff has now been chainsawed out and it's looking better. Thanks for the suggestion and you are welcome to join us. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Ribbit! (Thanks) Also wanted to give some unsolicited advice re some of your edits/talk comments. We all certainly have our own beliefs as to what happened in this case, and the trial etc. In that I think we probably agree about more than we disagree. But some of your comments, while maybe true from a real world argument standpoint, are not well grounded in wikipedia policy. Fighting over the event/trial "truth" leads down a bad path for the wiki - keep the arguments based on policy, and what sources say about the event, and its much easier to hold off the barbarians. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC) I can do much better than "beliefs"; I have reality at my disposal: Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton is an *employee* of MSNBC. Let the meanings and portents of that sink in. The problem with a policy-perfect article written by editors who aren't well-versed in the "real world" is that while what they create will look pretty, it will be a poor informative tool. Most of the problems with the Trayvon Martin article stem from just such a disparity. By mentioning various things on the Talk page, I prompt other editors to scratch their curiosity-itch. I'm actually rather pleased with the amount of truth the Shooting article contained before I arrived; I wouldn't have been surprised to find media mendacity not mentioned at all.--Froglich (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Category:Most-active volcanoes Category:Most-active volcanoes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Croak! (Nuked it myself.)--Froglich (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC) List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and Acquittal I don't know why you removed Maharishi Ayurveda from the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, or the templates from Acquittal which seemed appropriate (including "For other uses, see Not guilty." but I've restored them. And please use WP:Edit summaries. I want to AGF, but normally, especially for Acquittal, I'd just revert as vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC) I did not delete Maharishi Ayurveda; I created a new section for Traditional Indian Medicine, and moved Maharishi Ayurveda into it. The tag on the Acquittal is a five-year old eyesore which was addressed a long time ago.--Froglich (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC) No, they weren't. Yes, the one source template was wrong and I've not reinstated that, but the others are still appropriate - it clearly needs more sources, it only discusses America and England and Wales so it needs globalising, and you have again removed the 'other uses' template with no explanation. I don't know of any guidelines that say that because problems haven't been addressed for 5 years you can remove the template. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't have reverted you at the list article if you'd used an edit summary, I would have just fixed the problem with naturopathy[2] - as it was I couldn't easily see what you'd done. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Naturopathy fixed.--Froglich (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Historical revisionism (negationism) Concerning your edit on Historical revisionism (negationism): your paragraph regarding the Confederacy needs additional sources. I just saved it from deletion, but still, it needs those sources to be kept in the article. Moreover, someone put in a paragraph concerning black soldiers in the Confederate Army. Since I am not a great expert on this subject: could you have a look at it? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC) Croak! (Taken care of.) Thanks for alerting me to the mice playing while the cat was away. I added one reference which, IMO, is more than comprehensive (further citations could be lifted straight from its own encyclopedic footnotes). I also removed all that other editor's unsupported original research.--Froglich (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC) China See The Wrong Version With regards to this comment on talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). WP:BURDEN is quite clear on this issue you must supply inline citations to support any text that you restore. This is a Wikipedia Policy and deliberately breaching it now that you are aware that it exists may well lead to further administrative action. This part of policy was put in place about ten years ago to stop this sort of lame edit war and force the restoring party into providing inline ciations for the text to be re-added. There is no need for the text to exist in the article for you to add inline citations to the text. To help you I have copied the disputed text from the article Historical revisionism (negationism) see User:Froglich/sandbox -- you will find a link to it at the top of the page between Talk and Preferences. This will allow you to fully cite the material and alter it in any way you think is appropriate before it is restored into the article. -- PBS (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC) If you are not familiar which how to create footnotes in an article like Historical revisionism (negationism), please read Help:Footnotes and WP:CITE. If it is still not clear to you then ask on my talk page and I will help you format inline citations to meet the requirements. -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I know very well how to write footnotes, thank you very much. (I fell off the turnip-truck only the day before yesterday.) Regards the spat in question, the other party has rapidly exhausted my assumptions of good faith, the material he section-blanked was not in any way improper to the article, and whatever shortcomings he alleged were the cause of his dislike (over incidents happening fifty years ago, mind you, whose veracity he did not otherwise object to) could have been easily resolved by applying citation-needed tags to various passages as well as taking it to the talk page (presuming he was too busy to locate cites on his own or ignorant of how to do so, both of which I discount). He did neither. As far as the so-called edit war went, you locked it down two reverts in, giving me no time to compose said footnotes. Well, at least you're not hitting me with stop-signs, so I'm grateful for that.--Froglich (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I have explained you two times my reason: the material you inserted says not a word about article subject. The word Revisionism has sevaral meanings. I also explained to you that in order to resolve a possible confusion I need citations from sources. In wikipedia we don't discuss wikipedian's opinions. We discuss sources. Therefore please bite the bullet, climb on back on the turnip-truck, and proceed with discussion in the article talk page to prove that I am wrong with facts in hand. As for my opinion on the subject, yes, Culture Revolution involved a good deal of historical revisionism, but your text said not a word about this (in my opinion). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC) There was nothing factually controversial in the material, and given that, a citation-needed tag would have been the most appropriate course of action on your part, as wholesale section-blanking is often construed as vandalism and reverted on-sight regardless of obliquely plausible commentary explanations. Your continued rejoining in this episode despite the *easy* availability of RS supporting my position is disappointing. Let me ask you: do you intend to delete the section once again after I've added sources once the article is unlocked? No? In that case, there's little point in continuing to argue.--Froglich (talk) 02:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Commie Chameleons Global Warming Crap (AKA: Let's get this Stalinism out of the way) FYI, this is a notification that all articles that discuss climate change "broadly defined" are under discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision at WP:ARBCC. Your insistance on pushing an extremely fringe POV and using the talk page as a forum for those views is not allowed. I have reverted your comments with the edit summary WP:NOTAFORUM. The next section below also demonstrates you are WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, but to push a fringe POV. Stop it. You really do deserve a topic ban. The climate change area is a very sensitive one, and topic bans are handed out for such behavior. -- Brangifer Hello, Froglich. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC) I am in very good company with Harold Lewis: --Froglich (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "...I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist." Whistling Past The Graveyard of Dope Theories Hastily Renamed by Their Fraud Guzzlers (Pursuant the bullynazi tactics in the preceding section...) Don't everybody freak out all at once, now; ya hear? It's only the dead rising from their restless slumber to exact their horrible vengeance. (Watching you folks have your brains clawed out by ravenous ghouls in the years to come will be the epitome of schadenfreude.)--Froglich (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Marc Morano Froglich, Concerning the article on Marc Morano, I am looking for objective editors to help bring this article to a neutral state. I noticed that you participated a little and I would hope that you could join in on the talk page to help make this article more neutral and also rid the poor nature of the structure of the article, which is clearly not at the level of quality needed for a Bio and does not even come close to the examples of other Bio's on WP. I look forward to your help if you can. Thanks Jvaughters (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC) As far as the Morano, et al, articles go, at this point I'd rather they were pure drivel than half-assed mediocrity. I.e., it's better that a skeptical reader be easily tipped off that he's reading tripe (and thereby simply invert everything he sees for the truth), than encounter a muddle. I have become reasonably convinced (indeed rather easily) that Wikipedia (like almost everything else subject to O'Sullivan's Law) is going to remain a spigot of carbon tax-fueled propaganda until such time as the reality of a now cooling planet (a chill which the Orwellians are straining with Herculean effort to blame on CO2) dictates that either Wikipedia collapses into laughingstock status or that the cabal of administrators responsible for jackboot tactics on these issues (see above) are bounced out. 2014 is the year Khabibullo Abdusamatov set for the beginning of the next mini ice-age back in early 2012 (and solar tepidity is proceeding right on cue), so it shouldn't take too long for things to shake out one way or the other. Major cracks in the peer-reviewed IPCC blarney are also beginning to manifest, so it really is the beginning of the end of the line for them.--Froglich (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC) I see your point, however, we were able to get to a low end mediocrity point. I completely agree with your assessment except for one thing. It could be very long time to flesh out one way or the other. What absolutely drives me insane is the disregard for the Scientific Method and the very definition of Science. There is no place for consensus other than to advance a theory, but these folks are taking consensus as proof. Looking forward to reading the links you provided and also agree that this has the potential to collapse down on them. They certainly set themselves up for it. Jvaughters (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC) I really liked O'Sullivan's Law, I have always had similar belief, I had no clue there was a term for it. I always described it as Natural Human Government, meaning what occurs naturally if forces are not already in place to prevent it. Good Stuff!! I was familiar with the Russian Theory through other articles, but nice to see the more direct source. I am a bit confused about IPCC blarney article. I would appreciate if you could clarify the point on that one. Thanks Jvaughters (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Cosmonauts Re: "A history of lying will always be relevant" - Are you claiming that Tyson has a history of lying? Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC) I would hardly be the first to maintain that, and long before this quote piffle. Throw his name and "lie" at Google with a custom date search before August to weed out the Bush stuff. You can even filter out climate sites and conservatives and still get a face-full of RS -- not that this place would ever entertain the least taste of it anytime soon. He's a professional blabbermouth paid to tell the plebes what their "correct" opinions should be in a colorful manner, and knows where his bread is buttered. It's served him well his entire career while more ethical unsung astros are freezing their asses off on Chilean mountaintops.--Froglich (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Younger Dryas impact hypothesis ("vomitous mass") If you believe a summary of "Blarg" is an appropriate substitute for proper TP discussion then we have an issue here. Please self-revert and open a thread on the TP. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Given my assumption that your presence in that topic is due to your following me over from the Tyson article in a partisan frame of mind; I was not in the mood to dispense remedial education in the subject to a newly-arrived edit-warrior when the rationale ventured in his comment was one already addressed previously.--Froglich (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Your assumption is incorrect, I've been following that article, among many related others, since I became involved with the climate change topic long ago. Your lack of good faith is noted but still not an excuse for edit-warring or for such a childish summary in your third revert pushing the same content in less than a week. Again: please self-revert, follow WP:BRD and open a new section at talk page. Thank you. Gaba (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC) There is no sense to either making any edits to the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis page or talking about it in the talk pages when people like you and SkepticalRaptor keep removing tertiary references to indisputable sedimentary nanodiamond papers in reputable peer reviewed journals. CosmicLifeform (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Given that Gaba has no edits whatsoever in the Dryas article within the last 500 (which stretches back to January 2009), and no activity on the associated Talk page since last February, I have every reason to surmise that my initial conclusion is in fact correct. The present version of the article is neutrally-toned and does not attempt to bury the two supportive papers written within the last two years, therefore I am not inclined to rescind.--Froglich (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Once again: inspite of your false accusations of stalking, the TP proves I've been following the article for months. You failing to WP:AGF does not give you a free pass to edit-war things into an article. Discuss the edit in the TP as WP:BRD indicates. Regards. Gaba (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Gaba, you are a hypocrite holding me to a higher standard than you hold yourself. Obviously you had no intention of discussing the these edits whatsoever on the Dryas talk page, or you would have done so. You are *lying* when you accuse me of edit-warring, as your own editing history in the article over the last week has been 100% reversion (four times from the 25th to the 27th, a more rapid pace than any other editor in the article recently and arguably encroaching "gaming the system" -- note the following in the lead of Wikipedia:Edit warring: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation"); you have contributed absolutely nothing else whatsoever to the article in half a year.--Froglich (talk) September 14 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: . However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  - 2/0 (cont.) 15:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Why have you named the section title "September 14" for a block levied on the 27th? ...that's nonsensical given that my first edit in the Dryas article was on the 16th. If you screwed up and meant the 24th, that also doesn't make any sense as I had no edits on that day either. Gaba is the one who has not used the article's Talk page to achieve consensus, and indeed lacked it without my presence (due to the block). An already-existent thread on the Talk page adequately summarized the affair to my satisfaction, and I assisted several other editors in maintaining consensus to include the RS-sourced, peer-reviewed, journal-published Kennet paper. --Froglich (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC) 51px This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed: This block has been maliciously applied. Examination of the history of the Dryas article will reveal that not only have I never reverted three times within a 24hr period but that it is not even possible to mistakenly miscount while tallying my edits, and that in fact I have been only incrementally supporting other editors in maintaining a prior consensus (with them making many edits in-between my scattered few -- in fact, user Gaba has been unable to make his preferred version stick even without my presence at the moment; neither has user Gaba used the Talk page of the article to "discuss controversial changes" or "seek consensus" -- and thus an outrageous double-standard is being applied). As of the 27th, my last three edits to the Dryas article were on the 19th, the 25th and the 26th. Whomever reported this upon claims of breaking 3RR is deliberately lying, and the administrator levying the block for that rationale is, at the best assessment, incompetent for failing to check before levying the block. I want this malicious block not only lifted but stricken from the record (as would be revealed when following the links below either now or in the future), and I want the obviously guilty punished for this blatant abuse of authority. Given the repellent behavior of my accusers, I request the tables be turned and that topic bans be handed out to those responsible, and that 2over0's administrator privileges be revoked. Froglich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Please peruse the edit warring policy; 3RR is a bright line, not a right. You may also be interested in WP:NOTTHEM. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Comment: Froglich did edit-warred. He has been pushing for the same content to be introduced into the article since 16 Sep ([3][4][5][6]) never agreeing to follow WP:BRD and discuss the edit in the TP even though I asked him to many times ([7][8][9]). I also note his last reversal was made with a summary of "Blarg." which is highly improper and shows no desire to discuss but to impose. Another editor (Bkobres) is also edit-warring the same content and has also refused to follow WP:BRD and discuss it in the TP. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC) Who do you think you're fooling with this totally dishonest crap? 1) You are not a "comment"er in this affair; you are the instigator. 2) Your recent history of article reversion is greater than anyone else in the Dryas article, and said recent history consisted of 100% revision as of the morning of the 27th. 3) You have no contributions to the article talk page with the last half year as of the morning of the 27th (I note you've now commented on the Dryas Talk page, specifically calling me out by name at a time when you know that I cannot comment due to the block your comrade-in-arms has placed upon me -- a sneaky little shit Niedermeyer tactic if ever) 4) You lacked consensus over the last week. 5) You are now accusing another (not guilty) editor (Bkobres) of edit-warring, when, like me, his pace of reversion is less than yours. To third-party administrators: I am requesting that the user Gaba be disciplined in the following manner: 1) a three-month general block for 3RR "gaming the system" and for lying to administrators by accusing other editors of edit-warring when their pace of reversion is slower than his own, and 2) a one-year topic ban on "climate related" articles, to also include the Neil deGrasse Tyson article and the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article. Froglich: the section I've opened in the TP of the article, I did precisely because you both adamantly refused to do so (even after I asked you to many times). There's no instigation in mentioning you, your block will end shortly and you can comment, I could hardly discuss the issue of you both edit-warring without mentioning your names. My reverts in that page were all made following WP:BRD attempting to restore the stable consensus version, as were those by the other two editors that reverted you and Bkobres. Again: both of you have been refusing to follow WP:BRD and discuss the edit in the talk page since late August - mid September. Edit-warring is not the same as WP:3RR and slow edit warring is still edit warring. Lastly: calling other editors "comrades" is not WP:CIVIL nor advisable. Regards. Gaba (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC) As you were the last person to arrive in the topic and you lacked consensus for at least a month at that point (and you still lack it even without my presence), the onus was upon you to go to follow your own advice and take it to Talk first. Given your blatant lying in claiming that two other members were edit-warring when *you* were the only one gaming the system, I see no reason whatsoever to believe anything you have to say now -- whatever good faith you have a claim to is long-spent; and you need to be smacked with a ban-hammer hard to shape up.--Froglich (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC) No Froglich, you and Bkobres are the ones lacking consensus and you both were and still are completely ignoring WP:BRD. The content you and Bkobres are attempting to edit-war into the article was reverted from the moment it was added ([10][11][12]) and at no point did neither of you open a section at the talk page to discuss (i.e.: the D in WP:BRD) the issue, you simply edit-wared it back in. Your block is done now so we should continue this in the article's TP (in the relevant section that I added). Regards. Gaba (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) You are continuing to lie. It was not necessary for me to "open a section at the talk page" given that such is not a requirement for editing an article, and such a section already existed on the Dryas talk page -- a section you have not posted to since last February. Given your serial dishonesty, I will delete all further posts from you on my Talk page.--Froglich (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "On with the show!"' <Rocky J. Squirrel> "And now, for something you'll really like!" </Rocky> Drop the stick? Seeing as how the EW complaint you filed has been closed, continued chest-thumping in that forum will eventually make people wonder if the goal is to make a WP:POINT which is a regrettably frequent form of disruption. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC) As of the time-stamp of this reply, there is no result yet listed for said complaint, therefore it is not closed. I would be presume it will be shortly, but nonetheless.... (Three days is about average?) If you are an admin, I would like to see something done about Gaba's false accusations of edit-warring on the part of other editors, especially as regards to user Bkobres, who is certainly not edit-warring by supporting consensus in the Dryas article which was arrived at on its TP back in late August.--Froglich (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC) I apologize! I offered comment on an unrelated thread at that board and it was that one that was closed. Sorry. I'm not an admin, and my opinion is even if you have a gripe, you're not making it in an effective manner. Those who have most success at the boards are those who come with their own clean hands. I'll save further comment, if any, for some other venue. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Given that I consider the recent block upon me to have been maliciously applied (see rigamarole above), I do consider my hands to be clean. --Froglich (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Guess I do have something to add here after all. The process may have run roughshod over you, and if so that always sucks. But that doesn't prove - unambiguously - that anyone's behavior has been as vile as you hype it to be. No matter how bad the system might have failed you, lack of civility vitiates claims of clean hands. So if you are amenable to constructive suggestions, try to back it off a few notches and talk sources and content instead of editor behavior? Unless, of course, you have a vendetta in which case I'd support an indefinite block extension. Talk content, not eds. Vendettas are unwelcome. Use WP:DR and loads of patience for content disputes. Or go away. Your choice. Same goes for Gaba, though I already know he knows all this. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC) The administrators' noticeboard for edit warring is expressly for reporting editor actions; employing it in its intended purpose is neither a vendetta nor uncivil. From your last sentence, I deduce that you are a Gaba partisan in this matter in defiance of the facts, and will therefore close this discussion on my TP.--Froglich (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I realise that you might not want to hear this and may delete it as is your right, but I think you might have had a very different response from me and others if you hadn't called for blood, acted as though you thought others were doing what they thought they were right (whatever you might think privately), and calmly explained the issues. You might even have received support. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Yep. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I was wondering if Doug would ever show up to pretend to be an impartial observer after all his snickering the other day on the TP of the admin responsible for the malicious block. Regards Gaba's antics, I will assume good faith until bad faith has been evinced, and that ship has long sailed in this case. In any event, as stated above, this discussion is now boxed. Further chime-ins by partisans demonstrably disinterested in Gaba's knowing falsehoods (seeking instead to change the topic to one of my allegedly uncivil response) will be summarily tossed.--Froglich (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC) The Zombie Apocalypse is here! Oh my dear god; what's this?!? Will the horrors never end?--Froglich (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC) No! They're ravening for human flesh!--Froglich (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Dreams from My Real Father ("Protect the Führer at all costs!") Please note that I have made a comment at Talk:Dreams from My Real Father (see here) regarding the content dispute in which you and several other editors have been involved. If you believe other editors are repeatedly reverting your changes to the lead section of this article in defiance of the NPOV policy — even after the lengthy discussion at the NPOV noticeboard — you need to report them now at the Edit Warring noticeboard page (WP:EWN). If you continue to wage a one-person-against-the-world edit war, I will report you at WP:EWN myself (assuming someone else doesn't take action first). Edit warring is not acceptable as a means of handling a dispute, even in a case where you are certain you are in the right and everyone else is blind to the facts. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC) I am quite disappointed that your earnest defense of quality controls at Wikipedia consists of threatening the one editor in the disputes who gives a damn about them.--Froglich (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Your recent editing history at Dreams from My Real Father shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 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. 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. Your last four edits at Dreams from My Real Father: 00:36, 16 October 2016 03:56, 17 October 2016 03:50, 18 October 2016 02:55, 19 October 2016 Last comment by any editor at Talk:Dreams from My Real Father was 27 March 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC) I am fully aware of what kind of specious, hypocritical, ulterior-agenda-driven cowpies regularly flop down at this sorry excuse for an encyclopedia (which I stubbornly insist upon occasionally attempting to improve in some sort of weird, sisyphean masochistic hobby), and try to avoid stepping in them as much as possible. So, thanks for the big, red, scary warning to let me know that ensconced political hacks are outnumbering me in a certain article and are therefore permitted to lie straight out their butts in edit summaries with total impunity -- because the very last thing any superuser or admin around here wants to do is actually look at what's going on when it's far, far easier just to take a headcount and then do it what it takes to be popular.--Froglich (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC) -- That really is edit warring -- I posted here on 19 October 2016 with the standard WP:3RR warning when you had performed the same edit four times at Dreams from My Real Father. Your response of performing it a fifth time pushes the issue too far. The article talk still has had no comment since March 2014, and asserting your correctness via edit summary is not satisfactory. Your last five edits at Dreams from My Real Father: 00:36, 16 October 2016 03:56, 17 October 2016 03:50, 18 October 2016 02:55, 19 October 2016 21:37, 20 October 2016 Please self revert to avoid further escalation. Avoiding three reverts in 24 hours is not the only requirement. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC) As my edit-summary on the last one states: "Of the other disagreeing editors, one erred in called PJmedia a "blog", a second erred in his understanding of ATTRIBUTEPOV, and the third got blocked this morning.") The particular passage in question which keeps getting revert is one which had been in place for two years, and was only first altered on the 14th of this month. In fact, even you would appear to not have been bothered by it given your edits to the article back on May 12 did not remove it. As far as lack of participation on the article's talk page goes, all of the editors involved appear satisfied with employing the edit-summaries rather than the TP, and I note that no one else is being chided to use the TP. (Aside: About the only time I ever see admonishments to use an article TP is either in a) disingenuous edit-summary requests from duplicitous editors who themselves are not using the TP, or b) in posted warnings, such as this one, which are not levied equally to all the participants. As far as threats to "escalate" go should I not revert the current edit, certainly any of the other editors (i.e., the people who actually care about the article and are opposed to my edit) could avail themselves of the opportunity to revert a second time on their own without incurring any administrative wrath. Despite there being only eleven edits in total so far this month of October, they have come from five different editors. -- All it takes is two of the other four reverting me twice in a 24hr period to "shut me down" (3RR-wise, not that my plodding one-a-day pace which you list above was getting anywhere near that) and secure the "last word" in their favor, but given that they have not done so, what makes you so hot-to-trot in dishing out warnings? -- Has it occurred to you that they may have been swayed by my arguments (e.g., regarding ATTRIBUTEPOV, etc)? Even should that not be the case in the particular instance, the possibly of it should enter a rationale observer's mind before "escalating".)--Froglich (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC) -- Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion -- 25px Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FNAS (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Lovely boomerang. All's well that ends well. --Froglich (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC) -- October 2016 -- You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing, WP:BLP violations, and edit warring at Frank Marshall Davis, Dreams from My Real Father and Family of Barack Obama. Please note that this is not a discretionary sanction, as you were only recently alerted to those, but an ordinary block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: .  Bishonen | talk 14:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Note: compare also this ANEW thread. Bishonen | talk 03:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC). 48px This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Froglich (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock) Request reason: No proper warnings given; erroneous rationales; double-standards (e.g., more guilty and more uncivil editors go unpunished and are held to lower standards). What is going on is a collusive effort by several editors (and now an administrator) to prevent the introduction of Malik Obama's support of Joel Gilbert's thesis laid forth in Dreams From My Real Father, evidence of said support having at least three reliable sources, including a video interview. I can understand how the material might have BLP problems with the Frank Marshall Davis article (even though he's long dead and, arguably, his chief notability today involves the theory he is Barrack's father). The rationale for Malik's estrangement from his half-brother is an appropriate subject for his entry under Family of Barack Obama. Lastly, the idea that a BLP violation can be leveled for introducing Malik's support in the very article concerning the thesis itself is just absurd.--Froglich (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Decline reason: You were clearly edit warring to insert material that had been contested on BLP grounds. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. <stare> ...you mean the BLP accusation from the <personal attack redacted> in commentaries because he has friends upstairs who'll warp in to unblock him within hours whenever he screws up? That guy? You have bothered to spend the ten seconds necessary to realize what the Dreams From My Real Father article *is*, right? The article that's been on the Encyclopedia, apparently BLP-violating it, for five years? (If you'd spent ten seconds thinking about it; you'd have realized your premise was blown.) But hey: Thanks for being the one admin brave enough to sally forth after a day to phone-it-in like a millennial tackling a gut-course pop-quiz instead of just lazily rolling your eyes around and whistling "Dixie" until the time ran out like the rest of them.--Froglich (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC) As you are using this talk page to attack others, I have revoked your ability to edit it for the duration of the block. If you carry on like this when the block expires, you should expect to be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC) --Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction-- 50px The following sanction now applies to you: You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to Barack Obama, broadly construed. Please read WP:TBAN to ensure that you understand what a topic ban is. You have been sanctioned For persistent and aggressive promotion of conspiracy theories and unreliable sources with regard to Barack Obama, such as most recently on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Talk:Dreams from My Real Father, notably here. All Wikipedia pages are subject to WP:BLP. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC) --Topic ban violation-- Froglich, if you read my topic ban note and WP:TBAN, as I advised you too, you will see that you're banned from all pages relating to Barack Obama. Of course that includes Talk:Dreams from My Real Father, which you have now edited. I would have thought that was obvious, since I explicitly cited your BLP violations on that page as one of the reasons you were topic banned. If you violate the ban again, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC). The FALN fan club Oscar López Rivera The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Oscar Lopez Rivera". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 May 2014. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Ribbit! (There, dude.)--Froglich (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Request for mediation rejected The request for formal mediation concerning Oscar Lopez Rivera, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.) FALN a Stalinist terrorist group that ... I suggested just changing to FALN a terrorist group. I am not disagreeing with you entirely, but in the talk section I cite the article of Robert Bella on the surveillance (fun reading, specially when they replaced all the powder in bullets, dynamite and fuses with burnt charcoal from coconuts) that they used to capture FALN members, and they just didn't seem to spend much time on ideology. They worked really hard to avoid being followed and did not socialize together much. There was not much cafe-style ideology to these guys, they were nuts-and-bolts bombers and robbers. Just a suggestion. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC) While the average recruit in these terrorist groups was dumber than a box of hair, the ringleaders knew what they wanted; and what they wanted was "Implementation of the Stalinist ideological position." As such, I see no reason not to take them at face value.[/i], particularly in hindsight with the knowledge that an eventual dictatorship (in the Stalinist mold) is what was "implemented" in every case other violent groups similar to the FALN managed succssful putsches during the Cold War. ...This is also why I'm altering the various unqualified "nationalist" references; as claiming to be nationalists was a base propaganda position for the myriad violent groups attempting to turn their locales into Soviet satellites. (To make a contemporary analogy -- aside from the obvious Ukrainian one in which all of the "Nationalists" are on Putin's payroll -- it'd be as if an Islamist terrorist group seeking to impose Shari'a were to claim it was "nationalist".)--Froglich (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC) (Onlookers note that "Stalinist" has now been changed to "Marxist-Leninist".)--Froglich (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC) May Day Dissembling This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Alejandrina Torres, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jmundo (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC) I've asked the editor who gave you this warning to explain it. Maybe you are clear what it was for, but I'm not, nor do I see how it can be justified as an 'only warning'. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC) The warning was for re-adding contentious info without proper secondary sources to BLP articles. He/She can use the article's discussion to seek consensus.--Jmundo (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC) This person (Jmundo) is a tendentious editor who has no interest in the Wikipedia project aside from his unwavering constant of butchering historical articles toward a propaganda perspective devoid of either factual or stylistic merit. -- That the FALN was a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization (indeed an archetypical one) is not contentious, that supporting sources exist is not an issue (I just added three more references, all easily found given the large body of scholarly work in the area; I could easily add a dozen more) and that the various convicted FALN members would not otherwise meet Wikipedia's notability requirements sans their role in the FALN is also not contentious -- therefore their active participation in said organization (and subsequent conviction) is properly placed in the lede of their articles, not buried three sections down. (IMO none of these FALN personages merit individual articles, an opinion buttressed by the fact they're mainly copy-dumps of each other.) Jmundo's cut-n-paste boilerplate is simply an attempt to obfuscate and intimidate. It has also not escaped my attention that he has refrained from simultaneous reversion of the one FALN personage article (Rivera) which is more heavily trafficked by other editors unsympathetic to his position (said greater traffic resultant from the mediation request noted above).--Froglich (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Did you notice that he's accused me of tracking his edits? I haven't been of course, this page is on my watch list as you probably know. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Treyakov on Nuclear Winter I will try and explain why I don't think this matter should be included in the NW article. The point at issue is the allegation that Kondratyev, Golyitsin, et. al., fabricated data on the instructions of the KGB. Tretyakov is the only source for this allegation. You say the source is good, but controversial claims require strong sources, and Tretykov is not good here. His claim has never been corroborated - repeated, yes, but repetition is not corroboration. It is significant that Laurence Badash, who has written an academic account of the politics of nuclear winter (A Nuclear Winter's Tale, published by MIT) does not think Treyakov's claim worthy of inclusion. You mention the Mitrokhin archive, but as far as I know the fabrication of data on NW is not mentioned there. All that makes the claim WP:FRINGE. There is also the inherent unlikelihood of the claim, which I have analysed in detail here: Kondratyev's paper, which Tretyakov says was unpublished, was in fact published by Colorado State University (Atmospheric Science Paper No.261, Fort Collins, 1976). See the link to the article here. You say that the KGB would have overseen joint research projects; maybe, but Tretyakov does not say the research was overseen by the KGB, he says it was commissioned by the KGB, who ordered data to be fabricated. It is improbable that fabricated data could have been smuggled into a refereed publication in the West, and no-one other than Tretyakov has said it was. You say that the fraud alleged by Tretyakov is in keeping with what we would expect from the Soviet Security Services. Sure, but that's speculation, not evidence. As a compromise I left a summary of Tretyakov's claim on the NW page. I was disappointed to see that you did not accept it. May I suggest that you also offer a compromise? Pelarmian (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Given what is broadly known (via the Mitrokhin archive and the Venona project) of Soviet active measures, it is neither "controversial" nor "unlikely" when an original source (e.g., a Russian employed in state agencies) claims the KGB has manufactured//fabricated/massaged/guided/cooked/whatever data with clear propaganda value to Soviet ambitions -- because such was clearly within KGB parameters. To deny such is fringe. (At this point it is confirmed that the Soviets fronted virtually the entirety of the so-called peace movement during the Cold War, with direct asset-control of the major groups.) The idea that the KGB wouldn't have oversight of something it commissioned is absurd. Attempting to bury Soviet orchestration (per Tretyakov) in a 2007 book-publishing section was disingenuous; it properly belongs front-and-center in the timeline sequence when it occurred (1982), not when it was written about over two decades later.--Froglich (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Your edits to How to Read Donald Duck Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at How to Read Donald Duck. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. FNAS (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC) You're accusing the wrong editor.--Froglich (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Eleanor's seats Saw the revert @ Eleanor_(automobile). Agreed; leaving out that bit is better to keep the article grammar in an encyclopedic form. Thanks! Cudak888 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Ribbit!--Froglich (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC) Wagnerian rock Hello! Would you like to comment on this discussion regarding the issues at the Wagnerian rock page? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Croak! <looking at it>--Froglich (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Of Human Feelings Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Braap! <okay>--Froglich (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Vince Foster suicide I don't see how my extension of the lede can be described as a political diatribe. It just summarises items from the main article, which is what a lede is for. Valetude (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC) The main bodies of "conspiracy theory" research into Foster stem from the work Hugh Sprunt, Hugh Turley, and Miguel Rodgriguez. None of these people are "right wing" politically. (Neither, for that matter, is Michael Rivero, who first noticed the discrepancy between the black revolver in an ABC News photo and the silver automatic the man owned.) *Actual* "right-wing" luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh shilled the Starr Report, as did the rank-and-file Republican political establishment (which basically coughed nervously and then leapt at the salacious Lewinsky thing instead). ...I would recommend reading the article's talk page before contributing.--Froglich (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia uglification projects Cowboy Bebop and MOS:AM Hi Froglich, I've reverted your edits to Cowboy Bebop and MOS:AM. About MOS:AM, I don't think Gabriel Yuji was confused by the old wording, and think the simpler wording was better than what you changed it to. About Cowboy Bebop, the character section was just a cast list, so Gabriel Yuji was correct in saying that it went against MOS:AM. For Cowboy Bebop, since the character section is long and detailed, it has its own article at List of Cowboy Bebop characters. There shouldn't be a separate cast list in addition to that list article, and whether or not a cast list is titled "cast" or "characters" is irrelevant to that. If you want to make a character section in Cowboy Bebop that provides a short summary of the information at List of Cowboy Bebop characters, that would probably be fine. However, such a character section should be more than just a cast list, and should probably be written in prose rather than as a table. Calathan (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC) You're both wrong: Either the MoS requires a character section, in which case he's wrong, or he's right, in which case the MoS is wrong in demanding a Character section in the first place. Alternatively, I'm right, and the two of you should stand back and let me fix the mess in both articles.--Froglich (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC) The new, simpler wording you've made for that section on MOS:AM seems fine to me. However, I still don't think there was confusion before, and don't think the table has a place in the Cowboy Bebop article. As I said above, having a character section that provides a brief summary of the separate character page would be fine. It is just listing the voice actors in a table that is problematic. Calathan (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC) As the Cowboy Bebop edits the two of you were preferring left the article without any Character section, there is obviously confusion (note that the existence of an extended "main" article for the characters does not mandate there not be one in a show's article). If a reader wanted to know, quickly, who voiced Jet Black in the English dub, the article would not be useful to him. Thus, a table entry sums things up nicely, and is visually attractive to boot.--Froglich (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Meteotsunami Do you have a source that establishes that the images of storm surge damage you added at meteotsunami were associated with a meteotsunami and not an ordinary storm surge? The sources don't establish that. Geogene (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Wave-train pile-up doesn't cause the oceanic water column to suddenly move laterally over the coast in a sustained rush at 30mph like a tsunami (Hurricane Ike witness in the one source, Haiyan video the other). I'm on the run at the moment, and couldn't locate a meteo paper from Google's first couple page of returns, but you may be interested in the meteotsunami / tropical cyclone reference on p87 here. Note that some media organizations refer to the inundation of the Irrawaddy by Cyclone Nargis as a meteotsunami. --Froglich (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Usage of Ike I added a response on the meteotsunami talk page, please take a look, thanks! --Tfocker4 (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Tropical cyclone WikiProject WPTC Welcome to the tropical cyclone Wikiproject! If you need any help with anything related to hurricanes, I'm happy to assist. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Re: Cape Verde hurricane I thought about "significant" as well. Pretty much every synonym for famous is a better option haha. I could see "remarkable" or "noteworthy" being good alternatives as well. All three options work for me, so I'll leave it up to you to decide! Auree ★★ 06:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Jennifer Lien Hi. I've reverted your addition to the article as the image you used is a replaceable fair-use image. As Lien is a living person, it is conceivable that an unlicensed image of her could be created. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Pro-wrestling --- Talk:Edge (wrestler) --- Will you withdraw your move proposal? There is unanimous opposition. --George Ho (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) No. There's one in favor (me, the proposer), and three opposed. But of those three, two are pro-wrestling SPAs. As far as I am concerned, that makes the !vote dead even at one-one, which is hardly a groundswell for either side. Also, it's a "young" proposal. No harm in letting it stew for the full week.--Froglich (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC) If you had taken the time to research our contributions you would find that the SPA claims are baseless.LM2000 (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) --- Single-purpose account accusation --- Please make sure you know what you're talking about before throwing out accusations like that. Have you examined the 20,000 edits I have made over the past 8 years before making such an accusation? Are you saying that I have a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines? While I will agree that many of my edits are related to one topic, I have been active all over the encyclopedia. In making this accusation, you are, in essence, stating that I am not here to build an encyclopedia but rather to push a viewpoint in violation of guidelines. In calling me a single purpose account, you're using a loaded term that is generally reserved for new accounts who edit outside of accepted norms, guidelines, and policies. I'm expecting you to retract your statement and issue an apology to me and to the other editors involved, and I trust that you will take care of this immediately. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Given that the content of your personal talk page is nearly 100% wrestling-related, I see little reason to comply with this request.--Froglich (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC) No article about action lengths? Your red linking of the words "short-action" in .308 Winchester has given me pause for thought. Everybody and his brother knows that the Mauser style action was designed as a "long-action" bolt-action rifle, all our various Remingtons, Winchesters, Savages et cetera descended from that. Somewhere else in history somebody designed shorter cartridges for leverguns and then somebody else started cutting down Mauser style actions to fit them. Then along came Kalashnikov, Stoner and others and, poof, there suddenly appeared another whole set groups of varying of action lengths such as "AR-10 length", et cetera. To further muddy the water somebody else started making leverguns to fit pistol cartridges. All at various times and places while the makers of the old black powder metallic cartridges kept on working. But nobody has written an article. I find that idea hilarious and want to thank you for bringing it up with your red link. So to cut off my verbosity I'm going to throw this up on the wall and see what sticks. Feel free to contribute to User:Trilobitealive/Rifle action lengths until such time that it could be moved to article space. Trilobitealive (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Ribbit! (Happy to help!) ...would recommend merging whatever ideas you have into a new section of Action (firearms). '"Rifle action lengths vary widely among makers of modern cartridge rifles..." The problem here is that the term "action" itself is not being defined, and the article will be opaque to any reader who is not a firearms enthusiast.--Froglich (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC) That's a good idea, and possibly also a section to Bolt action, since the original term appears to be most relevant to the Mauser rifles. Whatever, I'm going to probably sit and let this percolate for a while while I look up more references and meditate on the definition in the first place since the different makers define it differently and some makers change their definition over time! If you find anything good feel free to add to the starter page in my userspace, especially if you find good sources for the definition, standard Mauser lengths et cetera. Best I've found for Mauser lengths was on a purely commercial page for a guy selling old Mausers, which won't fly on Wikipedia. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC) Disinfo I see you've been editing this article. It has a list of books published but this company no longer publishes books. The book publishing has been taken over by another company, Red Wheel/Weiser/Conari.[13][14] Doug Weller talk 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC) It's been over two years since my last contribution to that article.--Froglich (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Ok. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Nomination of Diablo sandwich for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diablo sandwich 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/Diablo sandwich until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Heckler & Koch P30 I reverted an edit. My content is by no means favourable regarding this pistol. The reader can conclude that the P30 has not met much commercial success, since only a few law enforcement agencies adopted the P30. The fact that the basic design is derived from the Heckler & Koch P2000 and Heckler & Koch USP Compact pistols is no compliment either. In the field of handguns it is rather common that a manufacturer derives a new handgun model from their previous model(s). Frankly technical advancement revolves around non spectacular suboptimisation in this field.--Francis Flinch (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC) ConsumerAffairs 150px Thanks for removing the puffery from ConsumerAffairs. I've expanded the page to include information about the company that searchers would be interested in. Please be considerate of WP:NPOV in the future. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC) Dying Breed I see that you reverted my edit to the hatnote of Dying Breed. When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should go through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This allows those of us at WP:DPL (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Croak... Change it back if you need to. I just think it looks ugly (and it makes it seems like I don't know how to make a "neat" link) every time a link has to wind through a redirect to get where it needs to.--Froglich (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC) Lehigh Defense I assume you are going to complete this, I hope? DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Ribbit! (Well, I added the "corp stub" tag because I'm not going to do all the work, or watch it like a hawk or anything.)--Froglich (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Elementary episodes revert You asked a question while reverting. To help youself answer that very question, google the specific phrasing. It pops up in a number of sites, one of them an official site for the series. We don't copy content without sourcing it. It is one of those few things that will rain fire down on your head from the proverbial heavens. Plus, as someone else noted, it speculative. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Jack, you're going to have to link this allegedly "official" site. When I toss Sherlock + "hinting of troubles ahead" at Google, there are only two hits, both to bakerstreet.wikia.com (not an "official" site AFAIK), their entries of which are straight duplicates of Wikipedia. I.e, it's my edit of 05:34, 24 May 2017 that's been "plagiarized", if you want to call it that (my edit is an hour older than bakerstreet.wikia's sole edit at 06:38, May 24 for that particular episode.--Froglich (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC) The whole "hinting at troubles" phrase is your interpretation of the events at the end of the episode. Left out, readers, like viewers, can draw their own conclusions. Please discuss on the talk page rather than using a source that does not address your edit to force it in. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC) In all of his scenes in the season-ending episode, Sherlock is dealing with losing his memory and hallucinating (e.g., there was no fire in his apartment). #2) The source I linked (which you groused didn't actually contain the phrase "hinting of troubles ahead" even though I never used quote marks around those words) has "brain-tumor" as part of its very URL, and whose first sentence reads: "...Sunday’s finale cliffhanger, which left Sherlock possibly facing his own mortality," -- So, you don't think there's trouble ahead for Sherlock? Really? Even when the RS provided you two different ways to glean the hint?--Froglich (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) We aren't in the gleaning or deduction business here, Froglich. We do not pre-chew the text for the reader; we present the straight dope and let them draw their own conclusions. And the other editor is right; this is a discussion for the talk page. I originally came here because I didn't want to embarrass you with talk of plagiarism in a wider view of article discussion. We can continue the discussion there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC) What "embarrassing" talk of plagiarism are you referring to? -- The bit where another wiki copied my edit (the very one now removed), with you then accusing me of plagiarism when I attempted to restore my own edit? You've already been corrected on that (see my first reply in this exchange, which includes time-stamps) which I know that you have seen since you replied further. You need to come clean and acknowledge your screw-up.--Froglich (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC) The Catch-22 is thus as follows: ...if (a), an editor duplicates exact phrasing (i.e., "presents the straight dope"), he is in violation of copyvio and/or is a plagiarist, and will be yelled at by Jack. ...but if (b) he generalizes the gist of an RS (e.g., my "hinting of troubles ahead" condensation), then he's "pre-chewing the text for the reader", and will also be yelled at by Jack. Therefore, the correlation between posting any expository prose to Wikipedia and being yelled at by Jack should Jack see your edits is a logically determinable 1:1. (Unless Jack is tired, yelling at someone else, or suspended at the time, in which case you might slip notice.)--Froglich (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Weston A. Price Foundation Regarding your moving content, especially in light of your edit summary [15], I see you've been formally notified about general sanctions in different areas [16], and recently [17]. Weston A. Price Foundation falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Please refrain from such edits, and discuss the matter instead. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC) Your choice of phrasing implies, I think quite deliberately, to the casual reader that the Weston A. Price Foundation has been listed let alone proscribed at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. This is not true, and hence your presence here (accompanied by gratuitous ad homina) is dishonest. BTW, if you're still "seek(ing) adoption by an experienced editor"[18], I would like to appoint myself to the role, with my first suggestion being that you avoid my material and my TP entirely, starting right now.--Froglich (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC) I'm sorry if anything I've written could be taken as a "gratuitous ad homina". I'm happy to refactor. WP:ARBPS and WP:GS both state: REDIRECT Template:Talk quote inline This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name. For more information follow the bold category link. Thank you for offering to be a mentor, but I'm afraid that I cannot accept. --Ronz (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I shall repeat myself: the Weston A. Price Foundation is not listed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, as you implied. Your equivocation is just a smear.--Froglich (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I don't understand why you keep bringing that up. "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." --Ronz (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC) I understand perfectly what's going on: You believe that you are entitled to "broadly interpret" that any entity is guilty of committing "pseudoscience" and/or "fringe science" whenever it suits you regardless of whether or not said entity has ever been charged with let alone found guilty of committing such in arbitration forums -- even when said entity was co-founded by a scientist with a PhD in the subject of expertise which is the entity's raison d'être (and said PhD being a datapoint I note that you find unpleasant). At this point, it really doesn't matter to me whether or not you're consciously intellectually-dishonest or merely impenetrably dumb, and since I see diminishing returns pursuing the conversation, am electing to close it.--Froglich (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC) You yourself brought up "fringe", and you made the edit based upon your interpretation of when and how "fringe" is defined. This is exactly what the sanctions are meant to address. --Ronz (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Side-dodge duly noted. You have failed, in three replies, to support your initial insinuation that the Weston A. Price Foundation is promoting {i.e., "...relates to....") fringe science or pseudoscience. -- And with that, this conversation *is* closed on my last word.--Froglich (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC) Total loss Thanks for your comment about this article. I was just thinking that the America newsreel footage was probably the first time an airplane (it's engines) was heard in a motion picture.Koplimek (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Ribbit! (Thanks!) Because Wikipedia is a Propaganda Ministry August 2017 This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Suicide of Vince Foster, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Accusations of criminal conduct against other editors, rhetorical or not, are not acceptable. I am enforcing a topic ban on subjects concerning American politics, and will impose a topic ban once I fill out the paperwork. Acroterion (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC) 50px The following sanction now applies to you: You are topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to Vince Foster broadly construed, for three months. This may be extended if ignored, or if issues arise after the ban expires. This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC) (Onlooker note: section-title changed by me from usual boilerplate.)--Froglich (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Blocked Since you've posted a violation of your topic ban to this page in direct defiance of that ban, I've blocked you. Talkpages, like all Wikipedia pages, are subject to such bans. Acroterion (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Actually, the wording of the policy is not quite like that, it's ... a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic... so I'm not sure how a talk page is a page "broadly related to the topic". Mind you, the WP:TBAN page is hilarious because the example given there (a TBAN on "weather") would result in Acroterion blocking an editor for saying something like "it's still raining" on his own talk page... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC) I'm aware of the policy, but I'm not sympathetic to deliberate boundary-testing in userspace. I would not block for the trivial instance you've mentioned, but I'm open to alternate solutions. Acroterion (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC) And just to make it clear, I'm traveling on business and have limited access to WP for the rest of the day. Any admin may remove or modify my actions without consulting me if they believe it is warranted. Acroterion (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC) " all edits about," is clear. As is policy. Yes, it includes pages broadly related to the topic, but also explicitly includes "the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)." Your edit was clearly defying the ban. It's a good block. Just wait it out and learn from this. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC) Froglich hasn't said otherwise. I think you're getting your wires crossed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC) No, I was asked to review it, which I have. Rather than just review it in my head I added my opinions here. Doug Weller talk 12:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC) A new day dawns at Infogalactic So long, Wikipedia hosers....--Froglich (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Welcome to Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core! We know you will contribute greatly. Please read the editors' guidelines. Have fun! Crew (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Thing were temporarily horrible, but they're all better now

As you may have noticed you were banned for a short period because one of the editors with sufficient privilege noticed a large amount of deletion in articles. I had also noticed it but noted it appeared to be balanced with additions in other articles.

I have reviewed all of the different types of your activity and I am largely sympathetic as I stated on my talk page.

I am going to reinstate access and request that you fix up the issue related to the redirects to the FALN individuals. The article redirected to now links to the former articles, which goes straight back to the same place. You could:

1. Create stub articles for them that says see "the place you redirected to", or
2. Remove the links in the article redirected to.-- Crew (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---

I'll remove the links. (It would be nice if some of the Wikipedia bots that drop notifications regarding this sort of thing were in place...although I suppose even they might not notice if an article remains, albeit in redirect form.)

Anyway, all's well that ends well. --Froglich (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation edit

That was a heavy-handed edit. Can you explain your reasons for removing so much content? I'd like to see most of it restored. Rectified (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I eliminated "coatracking" (the use of an article to predominantly display the piling-on of critics). Restore what you think fit. (Disclosure: My training is in weather (among the other Earth Sciences), and have held anthropogenic global warming theory to be propaganda since it was first mentioned in the 1980s. From within that context, the scent of "XYZs Always Lie" is very strong in my nostrils when regarding articles concerning the subject. The "Carbon trade" racket is a multi-trillion dollars per year scam enervating Western productivity and diverting the proceeds to socialist institutions and kleptocracies while propping up oil prices for the benefit of Russia and its Middle Eastern satrapies. During the last twenty years (and especially during the Obama administration), pretty much all of government-funded science worldwide has been thoroughly corrupted. Indeed, the SJW "invasions" of smaller walks of life all around us merely mirror earlier successful putsches within journalism and research. The dinosaur press and government-funded academia are enemy-held outposts.)--Froglich (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll put a piece of it back with edits, see what you think. I'm also moving this discussion over to the talk page for that article. Rectified (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Works for me (and I've replied over there).--Froglich (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Search Engines

For a long while we were being overwhelmed by people doing weird searches, and there was also a bunch of sites doing api searches.

I probably over reacted and blocked the search engines from using the special pages that list new and changed articles.

I have just re-enabled those and will monitor them this week to see how it goes.

-- Crew (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

"Contradictions do not exist"

Nice to see another Rand fan here. She is eminently quotable.

Another one I like is "when there aren't enough criminals one makes them" Whitebeard (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ferris, to Roark, in The Fountainhead, if I'm not mistaken. --Froglich 22:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ferris, to Rearden, in Atlas Shrugged. Whitebeard (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ribbit! --Enjoy also Malicious envy and Argument from Intimidation. --Froglich 04:29, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Objections to the standard Apollo Moon landing narrative (and also: how to pass a shit test)

Please undo your redirect of Objections to the standard Apollo Moon landing narrative to Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories. Rectified (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, why? It seemed like the logical thing to direct to an existing article rather than make a new one. (If you feel strongly about it, you don't need my permission to revert; any editor can do that.) --Froglich 14:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Because I am in the middle of editing Objections to the standard Apollo Moon landing narrative. The reasons are explained at Talk:Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories. Please undo your redirect. Rectified (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Go here and click undo. --Froglich 14:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who did it; you are the one to un-did it. Otherwise it could turn into an edit war and we don't want that, do we? Rectified (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You have my permission to change it, and I won't re-direct it again. --Froglich 14:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Froglich, I appreciate that. Now please undo your redirect. Rectified (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As I am under no user requirement to, I shall please myself not to, and with that, this sealioning episode on my Talk page is now over. (Further responses will be deleted without reply.--Froglich 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)