User talk:Frotz/Archive 1

Re: Pile-on on deletion review
Heh, I have to admit, I read the section heading and had to check it again -- "pile-on" in a Wikipedia context usually referring to a huge number of editors coming in to vote for or against a particular option. But anyway, since I deleted it under the proposed deletion process (which assumes no strong objection), and your request seems to be made in good faith, I'll go ahead and restore Pile-on in a moment. A prod contested after the fact is still a contested prod, eh? ;) Can't promise it'd survive an AfD, or such, but this seems to be my part. Regards, Luna Santin 08:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ezekiel 14:9
It was only the first phrase I'd had in mind, and I was only kidding.Proabivouac 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Funnypop12
Similarly, a checkuser to connect him to one banned user was declined as a fishing expedition. The trouble is that the user doesn't talk and sticks to only this issue, thus hindering efforts to identify him. I suppose it is now possible to create a sockpuppet to revert ad infinitum?Proabivouac 08:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What your edit mean See Talk:Muhammad/Mediation. Why you want to keep the picture based on mediation where we have no decision yet? --- ALM 22:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ALM, why are you supporting the probable sockpuppet of a banned user?
 * Frotz, your vigilance is truly appreciated. I'm afraid the sockpuppet vandals win for now.Proabivouac 09:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Smoking Pipe
I did give a reason in the talk page for the non-tobacco pipe smoking page. I also stated the reasons in my edit. Sorry for not giving it some time to talk about, but I didn't think the renaming was that radical of a move since the original title was highly inaccurate and represented a bias (since the pipe smoking article for tobacco was in good quality, as well as most people's opposition to merging the two smoking pipe articles). I'll give some time to talk about it if I ever decide to rename next article but I think it is easy to see why the renaming was a good decision. Take care. Zachorious 06:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation
Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Proabivouac
Dear Frotz, though we don't know one another very well, I am wondering if you might have some opinion to share here, should you find the time.Proabivouac 09:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems quite clear that you embarassed someone by rightly calling foul on the Gospel of Barnabas. I called foul on it too. Frotz661 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning
Never use a revert tool as you did here. Revert tools are never to be used in such a manner and editors who've been warned to not use them thusly but continue to do so are generally blocked for editing abuse. Thanks. 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please join the discussion about this here. Thanks again. 18:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have indeed been following it closely, which is why I reverted your deletion. Is the tool not there for reverting edits as suggested by existence of the "undo" option? There has yet been no solution to the question of removing pictures of Muhammad from that article, so the picture you removed should rightly stay.  You stated that you didn't want to wade into the debate, but your edit and the above bombastic messages suggest otherwise.  Frotz661 19:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations
Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay  ( Talk )  12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Allah Page
I suggest that if you are going to participate in a serious discussion you need not ridicule or write completely meaningless sentences such as "Allah is an imposter provoking hate and violence". If you have racist comments or merely have the need to be funny this isnt the place to do it. Thank you! (Ssd175 05:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC))

"You should read and comprehend before you make accusations. Frotz661 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"

I will stand by what I have said until you convince me otherwise. (Ssd175 01:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

You've convinced me that you are unable to critically examine theology without resorting to personal attacks. Frotz661 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked you to convince me otherwise and you are not doing so. (Ssd175 18:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC))

Very well. The theory that Allah is not the Supreme Being comes from observation that much Muslim thought is focused intently on hatred towards different Muslim sects, and non-Muslims, particularly Jews. This is slightly related to the Gnostic concept of a demiurge, but does not attribute the imposter to as much power. This subject is theological, not racial, and most certainly not funny. Frotz661 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoever said much muslim thought is due toward hatred? The media? Im muslim yet much of my thought does not center around hatred. To say that much muslim thought centers around this is incorrect unless you have some way to get into every muslim persons brain and and see if it is. Anyway, sorry if my comment may have seemed harsh, I was just saying that theology and all of this imposter nonsence really doesnt belong in this encyclopedia. (Ssd175 01:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Poll on every little issue
Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. futurebird 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Frotz661, also note Talk:Muhammad/Mediation.Proabivouac 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Unecessary template
Hello Frotz661, could you add to that template you created? As you can see it is no longer needed. Thanks. 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. That template,  doesn't seem to do anything and is a candidate for speedy deletion.  Frotz661 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes add to Template:Muhammad/lead image (since you are the author of that template).  23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks!  Frotz661 23:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for update User:ALM scientist/Including Muhammad Pictures Against wiki-policies. Can you please read it and correct any mistakes. Furthermore, can you please help me in presenting my case better. Thanking you in anticipation. --- A. L. M. 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Helping you would be difficult since I am on the opposite side from you. I will suggest this: Make sure your arguments use correct spelling and grammar and contain no fallacies, tautologies, or contradictions.  My objections stem primarily from logic.  Frotz 20:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Be cool, please
Please look carefully before accusing people so harshly. Calm down, please. I replied at User_talk:Menchi. I'm not and will not be involved in any of your disputes. Calm.... :-) --Menchi 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Calm down. I've already posted my apology for mistaking your edit for a deletion.  Frotz 00:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of old man smoking a pipe
You wanted to know more about the picture? You might look at the links at the article itself. It shows sites with information on this man, called Dorus Rijkers. There, you can also find the image's used, and perhaps in better versions of it? -)-(-Haggawaga (&#124;-&#124;) Oegawagga-)-(- 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider looking at: * Foundation "mrb Dorus Rijkers" - much historical information and photographs

Allah references
I got your request. Do I sense you are thinking of creating a "Allah is Satan" article? Be prepared for the wikipedia equivalent of travelling up the Mekong Delta on a dark night in 1969. I would suggest "not' naming the article that, and maybe going along the lines of "Perceptions of Allah as Satan".

My userpage has several search tools and a quick search of "Allah is Satan" only really came up with. I would suggest using other terms such as "Allah as Satan", "Perceptions of Allah as Satan" etc. etc.

I will continue to browse around for material in the near future. I do know however that around the time of the Crusades, Christian clergymen invested a lot of time in demonizing Islam and Muhammad, even going as far as saying the great pedophile was born in 666AD. There has to be available literature to reference this, unfortunately I do not know where it is at the moment. Keep in contact and I will help where I can. Prester John 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't plan to create such an article. I noticed that your own private article was censored.  Can you send me the contents of that now deleted article?  My intention is to weed out fact from fiction and create something that will stand on its own for people who don't read thick hardcovered books.  Frotz 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I created a userbox which is supposed to have more freedom of expression attatched. Of course having a userbox with a picture of a burning US flag and a message stating "I hate the USA" is perfectly acceptable to wikipedians. Send me a link to any information you believe complies with WP;V. I would love to created an addendum of "Perceptions of Allah as Satan" to the main article of Allah. Prester John 18:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

blake image on Muhammad
Plz revert and discuss on the talk page.Thank you. Unflavoured 04:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad
Please do not revert the change I made again. There was an explanation, namely, the category is being deleted as per a CFD discussion held on June 29. The link is here. Thanks. --Kbdank71 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I see now that the category was a needless duplicate.  Frotz 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah and categories
Hi. I invite you to please join the discussion on Talk:Hezbollah instead of adding or removing the categories. Lets build consensus, and be patient. Once we establish a consensus, the categories will either stay or go, but until then it does not really matter if they are there or not, in the lifetime of the article this period of time will be like the blink of an eye. It is more important that the article is stable. mceder (u t c) 17:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Apple pipe
Hi Frotz!

You recently nominated Apple pipe for deletion. I've closed the deletion debate as there were a couple of issues with the nomination.


 * 1) It was incomplete. You need to follow the steps here in future. They're complicated, but the system breaks if they're not followed!
 * 2) We don't put redirects through AfD anyway. For that we have Redirects for discussion which you might like to see.
 * 3) Redirects are cheap. We encourage them, mainly because our search engine isn't wonderful. If a redirect could go to a better title, be bold and change it. Only if it is actively wrong do we delete it - as we have to think first of our readers and the risk of them getting hundreds of search results (or none) rather than a relevant or related article. See Redirect for more information.

Hope this helps! If you have any questions about deletion (or redirects, for that matter), feel free to shout me. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 14:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I just redirected that one to Bong. Frotz (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hi Frotz, with regards to this edit on Criticism of Muhammad, I have a few comments/questions:

1) What `sexual activities` outside of marriage are mentioned in the article which merit the change in the lead? What "alleged forced marriage" is being referred to in the text, and where are the reliable sources criticising Muhammad regarding this? 2) Ibn Warraq, answering-christianity, etc. are all known to be unreliable sources, failing to meet WP:RS. The standards of sourcing is to be the same, whether the article is Muhammad or Criticism of Muhammad (see WP:SPINOUT in that regard). That is, we collect sources which have discussed the topic of criticism (i.e. demonisation of Muhammad in early Christian literature, or modern contentions raised etc.), instead of using partisan sources from both sides. That is why I removed the recent insertion of partisan, poorly sourced material. Regards,  ITAQALLAH  22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1a) Sura (4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."
 * 1b) Muhammad killed Safiyya bint Huyayy's husband to take her in marriage.
 * 2) Answering-Christianity picks from assorted forgeries, misreadings, and Christian heresies, claiming those to represent Christianity. Obviously then it's a bad source, but I fail to see the problems with Ibn Warraq.
 * Frotz (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1a) doesn't answer my question. 1b) also doesn't, and is also original research. There is no mention of forced marriage anywhere in the Safiyya discussion, except by implication in Warrarq's own speculation (not a reliable source). Ibn Warraq himself is a polemical author, and doesn't meet the criteria mentioned in Reliable sources (if you disagree, please do explain how he does), as demonstrated by experts' reviews of his works. e.g.   ITAQALLAH   23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1a) In modern language that means that it's okay to have your way with your servant's wife. That is very much activity outside of marriage.  1b) An implication of forced marriage still is a mention.  I fail to see where I did original research there.
 * I will tentatively concede to your point about Ibn Warraq having an axe to grind. Please point out the exact concepts that he gets wrong and I'll see what other writers say about it.
 * Frotz (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1a) Servant's wife? That's not what the verse permits - It allows intercourse with female slaves that you possess, not wives of your servants. But, back to the topic, where is any sort of critique of this (relating to Muhammad's actions) in the main body of the article? I will delay 1b) until we discuss Ibn Warraq a little more.
 * As for examples of Ibn Warraq's unreliability, a few are raised by Donner in the link provided above.  ITAQALLAH   00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Servant's wife" is one of the translations I found. Intercourse with female slaves (or concubines) still counts as outside of marriage.  I will read about Fred Donner starting at the link you provided.  Frotz (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Cigar health effects
Could you please discuss your reversion at Talk:Cigar ? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cigar-related charity
I have nominated Cigar-related charity, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Cigar-related charity. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the content of that article out of Cigar because of its irrelevance. Is the Gates Foundation mentioned in Software?  I didn't know what else to do with it, and was hoping someone else would make something of the new article.  Oh well.  Frotz (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalize warning
What edit are you referring to? --Raphael1 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * | This one. Frotz (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly think, that this was a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia? Actually I consider this version to be a good compromise (though my browser doesn't render the frame under the mountain of hijra image, where it belongs). It could calm down the WP community and get us back to work on more important issues. Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --Raphael1 18:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do honestly consider it a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.  Wikipedia is not censored and is not aniconistic.  People who are smart enough to edit wiki code can be expected to be smart enough to read and comprehend embedded comments.  That tells me that you ignored the comments saying not to modify the image markup and went ahead anyway.  That counts as vandalism.  Frotz (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Profit
Please undo your last edit to this article. Attempting to use a website - that itself violates copyright by putting up a copy of the film - is a violation of copyright and exposes the Wikimedia Foundation legally. Not to mention that someone's personal website is not an acceptable WP:RS/WP:V source, and violates WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. How about Wikinews.org? Frotz (talk) 07:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikinews does not work as a cite - editors on Wikipedia have real problems even just citing Wikinews as a source for direct interviews with people - let alone for other types of articles. Individual editors and anon-IPs that have been adding this info back into this article, again and again and again - are making it very very difficult for me to work on this article, and ever get this article up to a WP:GA quality rating - which is what I would like to (try) to do.  You must ask yourself - which is more important - having this little bit of dubiously-sourced information present in the article, and thereby prevent the article from ever getting to WP:FA status - or just simply remove it from the article, wait for it to eventually get covered in a mainstream WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, which it most likely will be, and add it back into the article at that point?  Cirt (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll do as you suggest.  Frotz (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you please also remove that bit of unsourced material from the article? Once it as been mentioned in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source, I will add it back into the article myself.  Cirt (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)+

Thank you very much. Cirt (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Inventions in the Islamic world
Did you put or apply to be put an edit lock or delayed update on the Inventions in the Islamic world article? If so I don't have a problem with it I was just wondering why my edits don't appear. Also I was wondering how to proceed with the article as one editor keeps putting poorly sourced content on it Oxyman42 (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't do anything of the sort. To his credit,Jagged 85 has been adding cites to the refutations of Muslim-first inventions.  However, he has a tendency to add "might have" or "some say" to a lot of it, even when there is no question.  He again removed references to Roman insulae, which clearly predate the skyscraper assertions.  Frotz (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I accept it was not you who did it, I was just wondering why the latest edits don't show up on the article? Oxyman42 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Credible author
Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of designated terrorist organizations
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of designated terrorist organizations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of designated terrorist organizations. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Black hole in Uninvited
I've made some more comments on the Talk:Uninvited (game) page which you may find interesting. I haven't managed to get into the secret room though :( Arru (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: May Day Melee
Thanks. FYI, I'm very much pro-immigration, I think we should be handing out visas like candy, and I think that once illegal immigrants have successfully made it over the border without being caught they should be left alone so long as they don't commit any crimes while they're here. I don't think it should be illegal to employ them, and I certainly don't think employers should have to check anybody's ID. But the facts are what they are. They are illegal, and the rally was for them, and that's what the article should say. And the ralliers think they have the right to cross the border, without even needing a visa, which is definitely wrong. This is not their country; I believe they should be welcomed as guests, but when your guests start claiming to own your house it's time to turn them out. -- Zsero (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Mouthwash
See my comment on Listerine at the end of Talk:Denatured alcohol. 121a0012 (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
I have had email communications with a few of the Implementors. (From Talk:Infocom)

Well, what are their e-mail addresses? Because I'd like to ask them questions as well. 60.230.180.175 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not give out information that they might not want spread around. Email me and I'll forward your message.  Frotz (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what's your e-mail address? (Don't worry, you can remove it just after you add it.) 60.230.180.175 (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "toolbox" section along the left side of a user's page is an "email this user" link. Click that and you can send me a message.  If I put my email address here, it can still be seen after I erase it by looking at the changelogs.  Frotz (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Reversions at Cigar
Let's hash this out on the discussion page, please. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Godfrey Harold Hardy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Godfrey Harold Hardy.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on 'Islamic' inventions
Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times. Now the issue is up again. Please see Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I got fed up with constantly chasing down exaggerations, inaccuracies, and fabrications.  Maybe this time around something will stick with reigning in this garbage.  Frotz (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tobacconists
Hi, I was working on the stub and noticed you reverted it. I wasn't done and think it was because I had a placeholder image. I finished now though but let me know if there's something you aren't digging about the additions.

My name is Jason, I'm a grad student; did a MS co-oping with Philip Morris USA, did a thesis on it, worked for Altria for a year, then quit out of frustration and went for more school and Peace Corps. So I've read a lot on this and have been exposed to it a lot; as I am debating the merits of being a tobacconist I thought I'd add what I know.

I was planning on asking for more contributions through linkedin.com in the tobacco and anti-smoking groups.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Best,

Jason D. Miller Econometrica (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) if you wish to verify my qualifications or speak to me directly then contact me here or (preferably) by e-mailing me at my "jdm1" UGA login. It's a EDU domain addy.


 * One problem is that the term "tobacconist" has always referred to retailers of tobacco and related items. By extension, this term has been applied to online retailers of the same.  It has never referred to growers or wholesalers thereof.  Indeed, I can find only two references to "tobacconist organization[s]" on Google, each of which refer to coalitions of retailers.  Checking further, I paired "tobacconist" with various names like "Phillip Morris", "Altria", "RJ Reynolds", and "British American Tobacco".  These searches yielded no hits specifically on the word "tobacconist".  Instead "nist" is excised and I am presented simply with "tobacco".  Unless you can come up with some substancial examples of the word "tobacconist" being used in the way you describe, I will revert such additions.


 * The other problem with your addition is that you cited your own work as a source. Doing original research is strictly forbidden here on Wikipedia.


 * Frotz (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Oh okay I better understand now. I can provide you some more hardbound references, but the main thing is that the term tobacconist is colloquial, and my (published thesis which I can email or cite) research + scores of tobacco industry conferences show the term being used modernly by "self-identifiers" and those who use the term in an economic sense. The tobacco literature (Becker & Murphy, 1988; Kip Viscusi's, etc etc) encompasses this group as an interconnected market of venders (the traditional tobacconist sense/scope), manufacturers like PM and RJR, and farmers.


 * Good quality checking though. I can work with you on this over the next couple days; I'm home sick at the moment.


 * Best


 * JDMEconometrica (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence to suggest that "tobacconist" is a colloquial term or slang. The Mirriam-Webster online dictionary defines the term as "a dealer of tobacco especially at retail".  This still rules out the wholesale and manufacturer usages you added to the article.  Further, the citations you made are problematic.  See WP:CITE for a guide on doing citations correctly.  For example, NEVER add your signature to articles.  That is for talk pages.  To clean up your additions will require considerable work.  Therefore I must again revert.  What I want to see is specifically the usage of "tobacconist" in connection with wholesalers and manufacturers.  Without this, none of your additions are relevant to this article.  You may wish to create a new article on tobacco wholesale and manufacture.  If you wish to contact me privately, please use the "E-mail this user" link seen to your left.  Frotz (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dollar sign
Hi Frotz. You corrected my edit on the cinnabar sign to say that it's from the eighteenth century. From what I can see on the top of page 86, the sign that most looks like a dollar sign is from the 17th century. (It's marked as "Signa 17c.") Among the signs listed as "Sommerhoff 1701," I only see one that remotely looks like a $, and that's the one that looks like an 8 with a horizontal slash through its bottom loop. Now, granted I'm working off the Google Books preview, so I can't see page 85! If that's where the 1701 sign is, then please correct the footnote. Best, TriniMuñoz (talk) 04:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where you see the sigil that looks like an '8' with a horizontal slash, go back two sigils. That's the dollar sign.  The first three cites on page 86 are from "Shelton 17C" which has three examples, then go right to see "Signa 17C" which has six examples, then below the first for "Sommerhoff 1701" which has twenty.  The dollar sign is right below the final '1' in "1701".  Frotz (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh! That slipped my eye! Funny how the mind works. Best, TriniMuñoz (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Smoking pipe (tobacco)
1. Including a reference, or any coverage, on screening the crater is the only way to correct the ignorance of many hot burning overdose smokers, who don't know (because the industry doesn't want them to) that smaller servings can be used (inhale or not) and that a screen is thinkable (let alone advantageous, because smaller particles won't slip down the channel and clog things up). This article probably attracts some readers who are thinking over their smoking options, and would be interested to know it is possible to use fine-grained material (such as the tobacco in some cigarettes) in a pipe instead, in which case a screen is advisable.

2. Censoring a reference to wikiHow is tantamount, in this case, to preventing readers from verifying that the idea of screening a small pipe (like the midwakh) is feasible, in that the wikiHow article, complete with a diagram, furnishes the information on how to do it. Meanwhile check out that article and see if you don't agree its approach is encyclopedic, objective, informative and in the interest of public health.Tokerdesigner (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Talk:Smoking pipe (tobacco)
Please consider responding to discussion in progress.Tokerdesigner (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Constructing FAQs
I was hoping to construct a FAQ page on a controversial topic. I noticed that you had created one on one of the most sensitive topics around, talk:Mohammed. I was curious about the mechanics of doing this, item by item. Was it done in mediation/arbitration? Did an admin impose them? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just took four of the most commonly-asked questions regarding the article and wrote "answers go here" below. Look at my first two edits on Talk:Muhammad/FAQ.  From there people added onto it and it became like stone soup.  I went out on my own to make the skeleton FAQ and asked others to take a look.  What article are you considering doing a FAQ for?  Frotz (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Incredible story, insight and timing! Good for you!
 * I'm thinking about creating FAQs on another prophet: Hugo Chavez (and other Venezuelan topics). (We all agree on images. So far, that hasn't helped!  :)  Student7 (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your edit
Morta is an bog oak used in the manufacturing of tobacco pipes. I see that the internal link goes to a page that is not about bog oak, so I have removed it. Here's some information you might find interesting: http://pipedia.org/index.php?title=Creating_Pipes_From_Morta Best, --Jsderwin (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is indeed interesting. I was aware of bog wood being used for pipes, but I wasn't aware of the term "morta" for it.  I went ahead and added a link to bog-wood.  Frotz (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would love to have a morta pipe made. Several members of the pipe forum I frequent are pipe makers, one seems to work mostly with morta. A beautiful looking wood! If you're interested you can visit here: http://smokersforums.co.uk/ A good group of people and lots of information. My name is PipeCat if you join. Best,--Jsderwin (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like one too. The stark blackness and grain is very attractive.  For pipe-related discussion, I usually haunt the Usenet group, alt.smokers.pipes.  Frotz (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's old school Frotz! In any case, nice to meet a brother of the briar :) --Jsderwin (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Muhammad
Regarding your revert here - I have re-reverted. Please see the detailed rationale given at Talk:Muhammad/images. The images you restored in your reversion turned out never to have been in the article by consensus. Rather, investigation revealed that they had been placed there by a user (now indef-blocked) with a history of disruption, without discussion or consensus, evidently with intent to provoke. In the rationale I referenced, I also refer to other editor's comments in the archives supporting restoring the consensus image to that section of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re revert on kiseru
We disagree on how "irrelevant" a mere link to the one-hitter article and related articles is. I think your "obsession" as an overdose puffpipe aficionado ("but we don't inhale") blinds you to a medical need, arguably #1 on the planet since 6,000,000 deaths makes cigarette smoking the #1 cause of preventable human death. The need, in short, is for 1.2 billion inhalant cigarette smokers to consider kiseru, among other one-hitters such as midwakh and sebsi, as an alternative to their present hot burning overdose inhalant procedure. Your "whistle passing the Auschwitz camp" intransigence borders on Malicious Denial of Service (MDOS, how's that for an acronym).Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Pipe graphic
Thanks for the great graphic at File:Tobacco_pipe_parts.svg! Rorybowman (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Your recent addition inspired me to come up with something a bit more detailed.  Frotz (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Fileware-floppy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fileware-floppy.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FileWare Floppy Image
Hello, this is Benj Edwards of VC&G. I just noticed that File:Fileware-floppy.jpg says that I declared the image to be in the public domain, but I have done no such thing. I don't mind Wikipedia using it, but you shouldn't mark something Public Domain if you don't have the author's permission. Benjedwards (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I concluded it was public domain based on these words that were originally at the bottom: "We claim no rights over this image, but if you use it we would appreciate some credit.".  Frotz (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Cigars
Hi there. I see you've somewhat recently made an entry on the Cigars talk page and was wondering if you'd have any interest in participating in a "Cigar Work Group" to try to improve the histories of the various cigar makers, write up pages for key cigar components like filler, binder, wrappers, etc., and to otherwise improve the coverage of cigarmaking on Wikipedia... Drop me a line if this is of any interest and I will see about setting up a formal work group. best, —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR Carrite (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Dr hans einstein.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dr hans einstein.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hugahoody (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fountain_pen_inks


The article Fountain_pen_inks has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable subject

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tfwall (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Jay Maynard and open source
Unfortunately, Hercules is the one open source project I'm heavily involved in. I poke at others, but that's the main one. There are lots of times I wish I was famous for Hercules, but I have to take it as it is... -- Jay Maynard (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of N8VEM


The article N8VEM has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Advertising, and not notable

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of P112


The article P112 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No assertion of notability. Hobby single-board computers are as numerous as mice in a barn.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of N8VEM for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article N8VEM 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 Articles for deletion/N8VEM 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 template from the top of the article. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.VR talk  15:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello
You may find these useful, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. Best wishes, Sans6 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- Frotz(talk) 07:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles
If you want some articles I can provide it to you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

dhimmitude
the article has become a mess again. what do you suggest we do? your last version was an excellent point of discussion as it has consensus.--  altetendekrabbe   09:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not fiddle with it tonight. Tomorrow night I'll go through the edits one by one, distill what Shrike is trying to say, grammar check it, and see if I can present that as a revision.  In the meantime, let's just all back off for a while.  -- Frotz(talk) 09:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks.--  altetendekrabbe   09:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI
I have mentioned you in this thread. ' Ankh '. Morpork  15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Uninvited Black Hole
Hey, I tried doing what you suggested to enter the black hole in the mac version, but it didn't work. Where did you get that info from? Any suggestions? 85.53.186.54 (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did it in the Apple IIgs version in an emulator. I tried on the Mac version, but I couldn't reliably find the black hole.  I got the info from someone who remembered figuring it out back in the day.  -- Frotz(talk) 19:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Note from Livingengine1
Hello,

Thank you for taking time to get involved with the Holy land Foundation page. The editor Roscelese has said that I was making up the quote about Abu Baker. Here is a link to the transcript. http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/2039.pdf

Search for "War is deception" I think I wrote "deceit".

There is a paper trail at Wikipedia. If you examine that sources I left, you will see I am acting in good faith, and I am more accurate than Roscelese.

I am still learning how Wikipedia works, but know exactly what Roscelese is up to. Livingengine1 (talk) 08:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at what he is doing at the CAIR page. Outrageous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Council_on_American%E2%80%93Islamic_Relations#Co_conspirator_status Livingengine1 (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for your support.  I drift in and out of Wikipedia these days.  The usual things I do is watch for whitewashing and censorship.  The snit that Roscelese started is one of them.   -- Frotz(talk) 09:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged, Frotz. Livingengine1 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I see the Holy Land Foundation page is protected. Is this by Roscelese's request? How might I proceed bringing this to the wider Wikipedia community? I am not here to cause trouble, but this is a hostile, partisan editor, and this needs to be discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livingengine1 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No. It was the result of my reporting Roscelese for 3RR violation.  See here for the report.  Black Kite set protection on the article for two weeks as a cool-off period.  You might find it amusing to put "Roscelese" in the search box on Administrators'_noticeboard.  He/she has quite a reputation for picking fights.  -- Frotz(talk) 07:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
Your recent editing history at Stop Islamization of America shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Binksternet (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-objective author? So?
I haven't looked at the recent edits today in any detail, just noticed your edit summary removing what appears to meet our criteria at WP:RS because you think the author is "non-objective". I suggest you read our WP:NPOV policy because nowhere does suggest we divide sources into non-objective and object and discard those we don't think are objective. It makes it clear that articles should present different points of view. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My basic premise is that you shouldn't do the equivalent of citing a bible study textbook from the Church of Foo as reliable evidence that the Church of Bar is bad. That's essentially what was done by citing a book intended to help Muslims in their faith as evidence of badness of a group critical of Islam.  -- Frotz(talk) 07:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't just Carl Ernst who is not an objective source, but now we have Deepa Kumar used as a source. Deepa Kumar is a Marxist ideologue with academic expertise. Even so, she does not say that SIOA is an Islamophobic organization. http://books.google.com/books?id=IAa2rGX44ocC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=deepa+kumar+%22holy+land+foundation%22&source=bl&ots=OCyN4AMqAL&sig=AWv9_oKvynoPrZBQY_fZ2BEoBSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dW7xUuWKJOXp2QXN4IC4AQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sioa&f=false

If these are the sources used to bolster the claim that SIOA is Islamophobic, then there needs to be a "Responce to Criticism" section in this article, something that Wikipedia editor Roscelese has specifically said she will resist. This Wikipedia article on SIOA is so terribly in violation of Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV, that to dispute this is past the point of intelligent discussion.Livingengine1 (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit War on Holy Land Foundation page
Hello Frotz,

Thank you for your assistance in ending the edit war by Roscelese on the HLF page.

I think I may need your help again in getting the attention of Roscelse associate Brinkersnet who is now starting an edit war on the HLF page (see the talk section).

This is a continuation of what went on before, reverts based on a supposed violation of Wikipedia policy regarding primary sources. There is no violation of Wikipedia policy of any kind in this section under dispute.

This started after I began demanding that Wikipedia policy regarding NPOV be followed on the "Stop Islamization of America" page (see the talk page). Other editors (who I have never met, and no nothing about)  besides myself have remarked that the citations given to support the claim that SIOA is "Islamophobic organization" do NOT say SIOA is Islamophobic. Both Roscelese, and Brinkersnet were condescending, and uncooperative, and now Brinkersnet has come over to a different page, and begun an edit war with me.

In particular, I would like guidance in how best to handle editors who are dealing in bad faith, and letting their personal politics cloud their judgement.

Thank you so much, Frotz. Livingengine1 (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this new development beforeyou posted this message. I'll keep a closer eye on it.  It seems fairly clear that the source for the deleted text is that interview on Youtube.  -- Frotz(talk) 00:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your time on this. I am not sure what you mean about a Youtube video. If this is the interview with Kistina Williams, I am perfectly willing to leave this out, but this has nothing to do with omitting the reinstatement of the 156 million dollar award given to the Bioms. Why does this have to be continually deleted? How is this in violation of anything?

There is no question that Roscelese has taken a proprietary interest in three different Wikipedia pages - CAIR, Holy Land Foundation, and SIOA.

What does it take to get Roscelese to work together to form consensus? This is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia, and she works to get around doing this every time I have dealt with her.

There is no question when looking at the talk sections of these three Wikipedia pages, that Roscelese is working to censor Wikipedia for her own political interests.

All of her rationales for her reverts at the HLF page could be used against her at the SIOA page.

She is a partisan editor, there's no two ways about it. Livingengine1 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I mean the interview wiht Kristina Williams. That appears to be a bit too close to being a primary source.  I don't see any recent edits on CAIR, but I do see lots on SIOA.  Let's focus on that for a while.  Many of the cites used to suggest SIOA is islamophobic have lost most if not all of their legitimacy.  -- Frotz(talk) 02:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Frotz, Roscelese has now tagged me for vandalism. Can you advise me on how I should proceed in this matter, and is there anything that can be done about this hostile, rouge editor? Livingengine1 (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Where did this happen? -- Frotz(talk) 03:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Livingengine1#February_2014
 * If you read further, you will see I am being accused of things I didn't do, and threatened by WP admins Bishonen, and Drmies. Here is a summary - When Roscelese began including statements about Breivik being inspired by Geller, I deleted these as per WP:Libel. Roscelese then reported me for edit warring. About an hour later, I was blocked by WP admin Bishonen. I argued my case, and was told by Bishonen that I was "POV pushing" and that he will act against me on this basis. When I demanded an explanation for this, instead of answering me, he accused me of sockpupperty. Again, I have nothing to do with this.


 * A second admin, Drmies, entered the discussion making a weak argument for Geller inspiring Breivik. I crushed him with three strong arguments, namely:


 * Breivik expressly states in his manifesto that he was inspired by Muslims to kill.


 * Breivik has also confessed from jail that he is a Nazi, and his mass murder was designed to discredit the counter jihad movement.


 * Finally, no less an authority than Wikipedia states that Breivik was planning to kill in 2002; Geller did not start blogging until 2004.


 * Drmies' response was to dare me to bring him up on "charges" at the ANI bulletin board, but that I had better "duck on the way out". I am taking this as an attempt to ambush me at the ANI bulletin board.


 * I now have two WP admins threatening me, and looking for pretext to act against me for simply following WP regarding NPOV, Libel, and consensus.

Livingengine1 (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Frotz, thanks for giving your time to this matter. I have made peace with Drmies, and have opened a dialogue with Bishonen, so I am expecting to resolve this amicably. I have to remember not everyone here is like Roscelese. It is going to take time, but I think I can eventually get people to see the Wikipedia page for SIOA is in violation of WP:NPOV. It is just going to take time. The truth is on my side. Livingengine1 (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Frotz. I am going to open a discussion about the SIOA page on the NPOV bulletin board. This doesn't seem to be a very effective way of involving other editors, but that is what I am work with. Again, thanks for getting involved. You are unusual in this regard. TY Livingengine1 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gablescar. Shrike (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird... I've been mostly inactive on Wikipedia for at least two years.   -- Frotz(talk) 12:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Alert
Merely a formality; it does not look like you have been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. No offense taken.  -- Frotz(talk) 01:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Fileware-floppy.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fileware-floppy.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've put out a call for a new scan of a Fileware diskette. -- Frotz(talk) 22:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, so there is no evidence for or chance to re-obtain a permission for the curent image? --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have located a good quality scan of a 3M-branded Fileware diskette and a rather poor quality scan of an Apple-branded Fileware diskette. The person who owns these diskettes says that he knows where the Apple one might be and so get a better scan of it.  -- Frotz(talk) 06:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You're doing it wrong.
You don't speedily delete the entire page, losing the history. You just reduce the size of the image and replace it on the same page, like this. —Prhartcom ♥ 11:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Per Village_pump_(policy), my approach seems to have been the correct one. -- Frotz(talk) 20:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Hitchhiker&#39;s Guide to the Galaxy (video game) screenshot.png
Thank you for uploading File:The Hitchhiker&. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at National Rifle Association. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —— SN  54129  10:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Talking to people as though they're newbies when they've been on longer than you have is not a good idea. I don't appreciate that.  You might want to look at your own actions of adding unverified material to Wikipedia before crying that something noticed and reverted it.  -- Frotz(talk) 17:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page warnings
I notice from your recent edits at National Rifle Association that you have been repeatedly undoing edits that you feel are not warranted. You've taken this up at the Talk page to defend your position; that's a good thing, and the proper venue for it, so thanks for that. The repeated reverts are not appropriate, but I see you've stopped, now; also a good thing.

However, at the same time, you have been active on the Talk pages of several editors recently involved at that article, accusing several of adding unsourced material. After commenting at User talk pages of (here) and  (here) about sourcing, you templated  (here) about sourcing, and  (here) about edit-warring. When I saw those four User talk warnings, I was quite sure you were a newbie unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, and going off a little half-cocked with rules you weren't yet familiar with, and I was prepared to come here and gently point you in the right direction, and add a nice welcome message to your Talk page. Imagine my surprise to find you are a veteran editor with many years experience. So, this warning to you about your inappropriate behavior will be slightly less gentle than it would be for a brand new editor.

For starters, you should know better. Here's the policy-based definition of who is edit warring: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring." Afaict, that describes your behavior, and nobody else's, for your edits here, here, and here; as opposed to four other editors who reverted you (once, afaict): here,  here,  here, and  here. Given that, I thought it was pretty cheeky of you to comment to multiple editors with 30 years experience among them about sourcing or edit warring, especially since more than one had calmly pointed out the fact that the sourcing already existed in the body. And extra cheeky of you to template an experienced editor, like you did here with uw-unsourced1 and then come back a few hours later to scold them with "Dont template the regulars" after they responded to you.

Please avoid incivility; Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with. The rest of the points in that section may be applicable as well: Try not to get too intense, ''Avoid editing while you're in a bad mood. It does spill over, and Be professional''. Please continue to discuss the issue on the Talk page as you have been doing, and try to avoid edit warring at the article. Please don't be condescending to numerous experienced editors who also, like you, have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.

This was your medium-gentle, first-time warning for what I consider minor, non-newbie tendentious editing at the article, and minor uncivil behavior at multiple user talk pages. I wouldn't worry too much about it, it happens to all of us. But there's no reason for it to happen again, though; right? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)