User talk:Frogsprog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This user talk page has been temporarily protected from editing to prevent this blocked user from removing warnings or introducing other vandalism to it. If you have come here to issue a new warning to this user, it means the block has expired. Please unprotect the page, ask an administrator to do so, or request unprotection here.
This user is banned from editing Wikipedia. Please review the banning policy before commenting or unblocking.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "MONGO has harrassed me for a while now, he takes an extreme opposition to my views, and has even contradicted other admins and broken the 3RR when reverting my edits, he has abused his admin powers by blocking me simply because I have been blocked before, I only reverted edits on a talk page to promote free speech. I will be requesting that MONGO have his admin powers removed, or I will be asking another user to do so on my behalf --Frogsprog 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Talk pages are meant for discussing changes to an associated article, and reverting an irrelevant and immature insult is definitely inappropriate. Your other edits to George W. Bush include outright vandalism [1] [2] [3] and provocation contrary to WP:BLP [4] have no place in an encyclopedia and neither do you from this moment henceforth. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Guinnog 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Anti-Americanism

Check out Anti-Americanism. --Guinnog 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User pages

Look at the coding of mine (by clicking the edit tab) and copy the bits you like! Let me know if you want any other help. --Guinnog 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's looking good! --Guinnog 20:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thanks, very proud! hehe -- Frogsprog 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's really coming on! Well done. Which one did you create yourself? --Guinnog 21:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The anti-gun and anti-americanism, and the PADI scuba diver ones, It's taken me a while! --Frogsprog 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:UKSWP.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UKSWP.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My vandal warning

I wanted to apologise for my vandal warning to you earlier today. It was your very first edit and I should not have placed such a severe warning for what was a harmless enough test. I have replaced it with a more appropriate warning, and hope you will accept my humble apologies. For what it is worth, I revert a lot of vandalism, and you can perhaps appreciate that it is a frustrating task. The United States article in particular attracts a lot of vandalism; that may have been the tenth unencyclopedic edit I reverted today alone. Nonetheless, that is not intended to be an excuse for my mistake. I'm sorry. --Guinnog 22:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very happy if I thought you'd forgiven my mistake here. I've done what I can to make amends. --Guinnog 22:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Dont worry about it, forgiven! -- Frogsprog 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Phew! Thanks for that. Do please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help you. --Guinnog 14:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Liverpool anti american Demo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Liverpool anti american Demo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I just noticed it! Thank you very very much, that was very nice of you. --Guinnog 21:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Londondemo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Londondemo.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americans

Your edit must be with sources. What is the total number of Anti-Americans? --Noisettes 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing article names

Various ways. If (and only if) it is 'utterly uncontroversial, you can just use the 'move' tab. I would always leave a note in the talk page saying what you intend to do, and if nobody objects after a day or two, move it.

Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages and Wikipedia:Requested moves will give much more information. Hope that helps. --Guinnog 15:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:UKSWP.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:UKSWP.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BigDT 00:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Those two sections are clearly not appropriate for the article, and I'm not sure why they were added there. This is an article about a theoretical phenomenon of Anti-Americanism as an ideology, not the history of Anti-American sentiment over various political issues. The Canadian section should exist in the separate section explicitly designated for other countries. The section on socialism has badly processed quotations, strange assertions, and incoherent logic. The heading it is under is also not about individual reasons for Anti-American sentiment. If you look through the article history, you will find that this attempt to catalog reasons was removed because it became too large and incoherent. Best, Tfine80 20:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please... It has nothing to do with being an American, and if you were actually a major, long-time contributor on this article you would realize that... It has to do with keeping this article as a calm discussion of the theoretical phenomenon of an ideology and not a storage place for political arguments either way. Look through the long history of this article. This has always been my position. These two sections are badly written and do not fit under the heading. I don't want to have an edit war over this, but I think if you seriously parse these sections, you will agree. Tfine80 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I agree with you that it isn't worth keeping. Using so many tags might seem as if you were a little NPOV yourself! One is fine usually. You can also use the [citation needed] tag in the article itself beside statements you wish to see verified. Oh, and could you stick messages at the bottom on a talk page please, as I've done here. Good to hear from you, --Guinnog 20:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Guinnog 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Image:Antiamericanism.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Antiamericanism.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Tfine80 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Other

Notice how this section uses NPOV language. Words like 'may' or 'might' and attributing claims to authors. The sections you advocate are bold and partial with no attribution. Tfine80 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The three-revert rule

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Tom Harrison Talk 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Tom harrison

Please always remember to assume good faith and focus on the edits and not the editor. Tom is quite right about 3RR, it is one of the few absolutele rules here. If you break it you will almost certainly get a block. There is always a better way, believe me. --Guinnog 13:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Two bits of advice from an experienced editor.
  1. Take it to talk; remember people there will be more impressed with your arguments there if you can show good faith, assume it in others (however difficult that may be), and follow policy such as WP:V.
  2. Walk away from it. I can tell you're getting annoyed; it really isn't worth getting annoyed over. Edit some other articles for a while, or else get up and go for a walk for an hour or two. Try to put this into perspective.
I really hope this is helpful and doesn't come across as patronising. Good luck. --Guinnog 13:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism 2

Given that you've been reverted by three different editors, I'd suggest you leave it the way it was. Start with "The Other" by perhaps drafting what you think is an NPOV section and present it instead on talk. Marskell 13:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning 1

You recent edits to the United States article are considered vandalism. Please consider this you first vandalism warning. Thank you for your cooperation. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Us torture.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Us torture.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Surprised...

... that you lasted this long. But you're gone now. Bye. --Golbez 01:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I got your email. Let's take a tour through your editing history:

Your first edit was to change the type of government to "Conservative Militaristic Imperial Dictatorship". The next few hundred edits are almost exclusively to Anti-Americanism. We get it. You don't like America. Stop adding crap to the article about it. Your third-to-most recent edit was to add "America is a dictatorship and the elections are fraudulent!!" to United States Congress; and your second-most-recent was to add " American Nationalism is a recently founded political movement that HAS BEEN CREATED BY BLIND CONSERVATIVES SUPPORTING THIER MURDEROUS GOVERNMENT!!!!" to an article, it matters not which.

In other words, you have vandalized articles about America. Why would I let you come back? Your question as to where there is a more appropriate place - there isn't one. We don't accept vandalism here. --Golbez 12:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with you being anti-American. I have a problem with you being a vandal. I'm reducing the block to 48 hours, time served. Next time you're angry, take it out somewhere other than Wikipedia. --Golbez 12:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Yankee_go_home_Liverpool.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yankee_go_home_Liverpool.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Dictators

Nader doesn't say Bush is a dictator, but rather compares him to a dictator with a simile. If you're going to argue for his inclusion in the List of dictators, you're going to need a better reference than that. I offer this advice to you without comment on whether you should argue for his inclusion. WilyD 21:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to George W. Bush

Your change to the page George W. Bush was determined to be unhelpful, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. Thanks.AuburnPilot 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your vandalism, just after the above editor reverted your previous vandalism. Continued vandalism will result in administrative action. Dubc0724 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. How many times exactly did you vandalize the George W. Bush article in the past 24 hours?

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to return and contribute to Wikipedia after the block expires. However if you again vandalise Wikipedia you may be subject to a longer block.

To contest this block please place {{unblock}} below and explain why you feel you should be unblocked.

— ERcheck (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fake warning tags

Do not add fake warning tags to other users talk pages as you have here [5]. There is no such rule on wikipedia that disallows commentary or personal analysis of an article on the talk page. --Zleitzen 14:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Your vandalism to the "Proud American" template has been reverted [6]. Please refrain from changing templates without prior coordination on the appropriate talk pages. --Looper5920 20:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Book with flagburning cover

I'd be happy to find you a free replacement for Image:1antiamericanism.jpg. The current one is mearly to illusrtrate an american flag burning, but the book's cover is copyrighted. I'll look for one to replace it harder in a few hours and tommorrow. --Kevin_b_er 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So...

Part 1

Why, exactly, do you feel so strongly about my country? Keep in mind that there is a difference between Dubya and our nation. Dubya is a wingnut, and most of us voted against him back in 2000. Last I checked, his approval ratings were in the toliet, down in Nixon territory. The only reason he won in 2004 was because of the 9/11 hysteria, and, according to a friend of mine (who also held his nose and voted for Kerry) because the Democrats managed to pick the one man more stupid than him. (Granted, a piece of belly button lint would make a better president than Bush...) Even then, Bush-matics aside, 51% is not a mandate. So, what exactly do you find so objectionable about my country, aside from the Bush administration? He'll be gone in a couple of years, after all. Is it something we could fix? Or are we just a convenient target for you to take your frustrations out on? crazyeddie 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I also feel your electoral system is corrupt i.e an "elite electorate" hardly seems fair.

Do you mean the electoral college? Or do you mean special interest lobbying?

  • Your county's constant hostility towards underdog nations,

Could you give me a list of underdog nations we are hostile to, according to you? North Korea is obviously one in your eyes, but our hostility to their government is, I believe, understandable: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1131421.stm I'd like to point out that we are hostile to their government, not their people. Or at least that's what I'd like to think.

  • and some ammendments to your constitution, including the right to carry guns also anger me

Ah, yes, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

An interesting phrase in that is "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free State." That reflects Thomas Jefferson's ideal of the yeoman farmer. In practice, militias suck. Give a bunch of civlians weapons and you have an armed mob, not an army. The militias have long since been replaced by the National Guard. But part of what Jefferson was looking for was an escape clause to the constitution - if the people were armed, they would help ensure government for the people, by the people. And relying on militias instead of a large standing army might keep despotism in check. But I can't remember the last time there was a large armed revolt against constitutional authority...

So, to a certain extent, the Second Amendment is just a historical curiosity, and it's just too much of a pain in the ass to change it. But that said, I'm not so sure private gun ownership is such a bad thing. I live in an area that is reasonably rural, and there is a need for hunting. We've wiped out most of the top predators in the area, and the deer need to be hunted to keep their populations in check. And it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to allow people to protect themselves from robbers and such. The police can't be everywhere. We do, after all, strongly prosecute the illegal use of firearms.

Of course, conditions are different in the big cities, but we do act to keep gun violence in check, while allowing the legal use of firearms for hunting and self-protection. It's a matter of balance. I wonder if there is much difference in the homocide statistics in England and in the US. It's not like y'all don't have some guns there also, even if they are illegal. To quote the NRA (who I think take gun ownership to a bit of an extreme), if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. And sometimes a broken beer bottle works just as well.

That said, how is our gun ownership your problem? It has little effect on our foerign policy, and it's not like you live here. So what's your beef? crazyeddie 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

<RE: my "beef" is the immorality of how you act, domestically and internationally,>

I was specifically referring to your rather strong views about our constitutional gun rights. How does our gun rights affect you? How are they "immoral"? Can you demonstrate that our gun rights lead to higher homocide rates, for example? And, even if you can, can you distinguish that effect from other differences between our two countries?

<mr bush is trying to prove a point...>

Actually, it's not only Mr. Bush or our government that hates the government of North Korea but virtually all of the American people as well. There might be some Americans that don't hate that miserable excuse for a government, but if so, they have yet to make their views on the subject known to me.

It's true that Bush included North Korea in the "Axis of Evil." But my interpretation of that is that it was just part of his campaign for the Iraq War. First he declared war on "terrorism" instead of Al Qaeda. Then he came up with that Axis of Evil - every member of which has, at one point or another, sponsered terrorists, but had virtually nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Then he started beating the war-drums against Iraq. He systematically and cynically redirected our rightful anger against Al Qaeda to a target of his choosing.

I do agree that all three governments of the "Axis" are, in fact, evil. What I don't like is that Bush used the "Axis" to mislead us into Iraq, and that actually labelling them that way makes diplomacy rather hard to carry out. No reason to call the bastards bastards - everyone knows they're bastards.

And, incidentally, one of the reasons (not the only one, though) I was against Bush's Iraq adventure was that it would tie down our military, making us vulnerable to other threats - like North Korea, for example.

<the only reason your government hates korea is because of the communism, nothing else.>

Not just because they are Communist, although that's a good chunk of it. Why do I hate the government of North Korea? Let me count the ways...

(source: the British Broadcasting Corporation[7])

  1. "two million people have died since the mid-1990s because of acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement." (emphasis mine)
  2. "The totalitarian state also stands accused of systematic human rights abuses. Reports of torture, public executions, slave labour, and forced abortions and infanticides in prison camps have emerged. A US-based rights group has estimated that there are up to 200,000 political prisoners in North Korea."
  3. "Radio and TV sets in North Korea are pre-tuned to government stations that pump out a steady stream of propaganda. The state has been dubbed the world's worst violator of press freedom by the media rights body Reporters Without Frontiers."
  4. "Ordinary North Koreans caught listening to foreign broadcasts risk harsh punishments, such as forced labour." That probably would go for internet websites as well, if North Korea had internet access - if you were your average North Korean, you'd be doing hard labor for reading this.
  5. "North Korea maintains one of the world's largest standing armies and militarism pervades everyday life."
  6. Throw in the fact that Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ, that North Korea has missiles that can reach Japan and maybe San Francisco, and has stated that it has produced nuclear weapons. What's not to like?

Why do I hate Communism? Well, capitalism is far from perfect, and you need some socialism to smooth out the rough edges, create a saftey net. Even our "capitalist" government has some socialist aspects. But a completely planned economy is a cure worse than the disease. A saftey net is one thing, a straightjacket is another. Central planners seem to assume that they know what the people want more than the people do. That shows contempt. Let the people vote with their pocketbooks.

With very few exceptions "Communist" states are totalitarian dictatorships. Sure, there are elections, but there is only one name on the ballot. How can you be for the people unless you can be held responsible by them? Only liberal democracy is government "for the people, by the people, and of the people." A "communist state" is nothing more than a dictatorship, no better than the old Czarist government of Russia. It is a step backwards, not forwards.

Yes, my government and my people are against the government of North Korea. We are not against the North Koreans - our anger is largely on their behalf. If it were not for China's protection we would have wiped that vile regime of the face of the Earth a long time ago, and the world would be a better place for it. I will not apologize for this. crazyeddie 03:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 3

<your information comes only from what your government tells you>

Hunh. I didn't know that the BBC was a bureau of the US government. I have heard Great Britain described as the "51st State," but I wasn't aware that Congress had actually passed the annexation resolution. Well, I'm sure the Ministry of Truth will get around to informing me about it when they feel I need to know.

So where are you getting your information from? The KCNA? Which is the closer relationship - the one the BBC has with the United States government, or the one that KCNA has with the North Korean government? The North Korean government's "offical" fan site? Yeah, that sounds like an unbiased source!

Well, wherever we are getting our information from, it is apparent that our two accounts differ wildly. So how should we seek confirmation or disconfirmation of these competing theories? (Asks the philosophy student who has studied epistemology and the philosophy of science.) Well, as far as the concentration camp allegations go, I suppose we could obtain satellite maps of these alleged concentration camps (I hear that they are available through commerical satellites, but I haven't bothered tracking down that rumour) and go to those locations in person. However, I'd imagine that the North Korean government would state that those facillities contain state secrets and we would probably get arrested for espinoge and/or shot. But that's all to the good, since we would finally get first-hand knowledge of the North Korean prison system, and would be able to report if the experience includes torture and starvation. Assuming that we got back out alive, of course.

Any other suggestions on how to determine the truth of these matters?

<your government is intent on imposing the "american way of life" on the entire world.>

Yes. Yes we are. The people, too, not just the government. We are also intent on imposing what has become the British way of life, the Canadian way of life, the French way of life, the EU way of life, the Japanese way of life, the South Korean way of life, and what, until this past week, was the Thai way of life. This way of life is known as "liberal democracy." As a certain Englishman put it, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

In fact, many of our most shameful moments from the Cold War was when we forgot about our mission to spread liberal democracy and focused instead on anti-Communism. We destablized democracies that were leaning left, and we propped up corrupt dictatorships that opposed communism. Not only were these actions immoral, these policies made us enemies and cost us friends. And Bush is doing the same damn thing - destablizing the Palestinian government after Hamas won the election. I'm worried that he will try to destablize Venezula because of Chavez. As for me, I would rather have a hostile (liberal!) democracy than a friendly dictatorship. At least there is the chance that the democracy will change its mind. Well, despite our mistakes, failures, and moments of stupidity, we have been fairly successful at spreading liberal democracy, judging by the Freedom House list of free nations. And your nation has been our equal partner in the effort. Thank you.

Back to some other questions you haven't answered yet: What is your problem with our constitutional gun rights? What exactly do you mean by "elite electorate?" crazyeddie 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 4

<1.)i mean the electoral college, a group of elites who elect the leader>

Heh. The "electors" are hardly elite. The position is pretty much symbolic these days. I might as well acuse you of being a subject of a feudal monarcy. I have no idea which electors I've voted for, and it doesn't matter, since they always vote the way the majority of the state of Missouri voted. If one of the electors voted the wrong way, it would cause a constitutional crisis, and the elector would probably be torn limb from limb by an angry mob. Fortunately, I don't think it's ever happened. Granted, the electoral college started out as an elitist anti-mobocracy measure. Plus the early US was huge in terms of communication time, and the Founding Fathers didn't think there would be many people who would be known throughout the Union. They actually thought that the College would just serve as a nominating body, and that the decision would usually get made by the House of Representatives. But they didn't anticipate the rise of political parties.

It's true that the electoral college dilutes democracy a bit - sometimes minority candidates win, but that's really rare. 2000 was an exception. But you have to remember, we started out as a federation of states, not a unified nation. The electoral college was a compromise. Granted, it could use some reforming - like breaking up the blocs so that an entire state's vote doesn't go for the winner. But a much better reform would be Instant Runoff Voting. That way, third parties would have a chance.

2.)your gun laws have caused problems even here, I am a deputy manager at Manchester Airport, the amount of americans arrested for mistakenly bringing ammunition that they have left in their bags into the UK is unbelievable! not to mention the fact that allowing your citizens to carry weapons of death is obviously a bad idea!how could you not see that!

Ah! Good old American stupidity! That sounds like us. Of course, the more I learn about other cultures, the more I learn they are exactly just as stupid as us, only in different and exciting ways. Just out of curiosity, what is the penalty for bringing in ammunition? Nothing too harsh, I hope. Deportation, maybe? A fine? Short jail sentence? Take their birthdays away?

As for the second, it's simple - we trust our citizens. A gun is just a tool. It has moral uses and immoral uses. Moral uses include hunting and self-protection. I don't agree with capital punishment, but I do agree that people have a right to protect themselves from muggers, murders, and rapists, with lethal force if necessary. And, for the most part, our gun owners do use their guns in a legal, moral, and responsible fashion. Like I said, I seriously doubt that our homocide rates are that much higher than yours. Why don't you check on that and get back to me? And to answer your question with a question: How does a tool that is inherently immoral in the hands of a private citizen suddenly become moral in the hands of an offical?

For the record, I don't own a gun myself. I feel pretty safe in this area and I don't hunt. But I have taken a military marksmenship course in college where I used a M-16, and I fired off a .22 back in Boy Scouts. If a gun suddenly fell into my hands, I seriously doubt I would suddenly go on a killing spree. A tool is just a tool. Guns don't kill people, people do. crazyeddie 20:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 5

Some parallels to the whole bringing-ammunition-to-England thing come to mind. First off, imagine what would happen to a Dutchman who brought a few joints over to America in their carry-on. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, but I think it's quasi-legal over there. Maybe he just forgot it was in there... I'm pretty sure you've had enough American media shoved down your throat that you have about as good of idea what would happen as I do. I'm not entirely sure what would happen, but it might be better for them if they got deported. Prison bad.

Another example: over in Russia, there's this pop band by the name of Tatu. They did that godawful "Everything she said" song that was real big a couple of years ago. Well, on the cover of one of their albums, they had the photos of some naked young women, some as young as 14. Perfectly legal in Russia, but over here, that's child pornography. So they had to change the cover for the American release. What would happen if a Russian brought over their copy of the album, complete with the cover? Again, I'm not entirely sure. I know Customs probably wouldn't be looking for it, but other than that...

A third example: Here in America, you can drive at 16, drink alcohol at 21. Over in Germany, it's just opposite - you can drink at 16, but you can't drive anything but a moped until 21. (Or at least that's how it was when I took high school German a decade ago.) So what happens if a German exchange student wants a brewski while he's here? Probably get a misdemeanor "minor in possession" charge.

In every case, the individual definitally gets some major Stupid Points for either not knowing the laws of the land they are visiting, or not checking their luggage better. (Or in the case of the German, getting caught. I think the police are mostly offended by kids boozing up right in front of them. Makes them look stupid, you know?) But I certainly don't think any of them committed a mortal sin, exactly. Now what would you think if some American started shooting off their mouth about how immoral, drugged-up, and sex-crazed those Europeans are, and how their laxness is causing troubles for us? Don't you know that drugs aren't safe!!? The only difference between my cases and your case is cultural - we have a hang up about sex and drugs, Europeans have a hang up about violence. Granted, you probably have the healthier attitude, but that's just the way things are. You're just trying to impose your way of life on us.

You say that you're saftey conscious. I'm leaning more towards paranoid. A true NRA gun nut would wonder what ulterior motives your government has, and why they would want a disarmed populace. A well-designed gun is designed to go off only if the user intends for it to go off. Ammunition by itself isn't any more dangerous than a bunch of firecrackers. Used improperly, a car, a forklift, or a butcher knife can be just as deadly as a gun. Granted, I wouldn't take a butcher knife through airport security, but I wouldn't take a gun through, either. I'm assuming these Americans had the contraband in their checked luggage, not their carry-on, right? If you really want to go for some damage, though, you won't piddle around with small arms. You'll get yourself a rental truck, some fertilizer, some diesel fuel, and wee bit of dynamite. With a gun, you might get ten people, tops, before the police get you. With a truck bomb, you could get yourself a few hundred. Not that I'm advocating that, mind.

Look, we aren't exactly lax about firearms ourself. For one thing, in the parts of the country where carrying a gun is normal, it's also normal to indoctrinate kids in gun saftey. Don't point a gun at anything you don't want to kill. Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Safties aren't. And so on. I can see why you might be worried about a British dude with a gun. He'd probably twirl it around on his finger, fully loaded, saftey off, then wonder why he shot himself. We, on the other hand, don't take risks with implements of death. We know they are dangerous, and we understand the dangers.

There are also some legal issues involved. It's true that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. But most jurisdictions have laws against both brandishing a weapon and carrying a concealed weapon. Depending on how the cop feels that day, you'd be amazed at how little middle ground there is between those two states! When you're out in the country, you're pretty much left alone, and quite a few country boys have a gun rack in their truck. But you don't generally walk down Main Street packing heat. That's going to get you looked at funny, and the police are going to want to have Words With You.

Missouri is a bit of an exception, because we recently passed a concealed-carry law. (I'm told that it was so private eyes, bodyguards, and other professional type people could carry.) But we do require you to have a licence, and to get that, you have to have a background check and pass a test that at least sees if you're likely to shoot yourself in the foot. And most businesses have a "no weapons on premises" notice up. The Wild West it ain't.

The U.S. also limits the sales of certain kinds of firearms. I guess the rationale is that bearing arms is a right, but selling isn't. Sidearms, hunting rifles and shotguns are fine. Even semi-automatics are fine. But we do draw the line at fully automatics, armor-piercing rounds, etc. Rocket launchers are right out. Even we like to have a military that's better armed than the general public. And we don't let convicted felons buy guns either, any more than we let them vote.

Until you show otherwise, I maintain that our homocide rates are pretty similar to yours. According to you, people ought to be blasting each other away left and right, but that just doesn't happen too often. On the other hand, there are plenty of ways to kill people, if you feel the urge, which don't involve guns. I don't think your ban on guns makes you all that much safer.

For that matter, just how extensive is that ban? Don't y'all do any hunting at all? Or is it just some rich snobs banging away at the wildlife with some antique shotguns that got grandfathered in?

As far as you not liking the prime minister, how about you get the queen to pick a better one next time? After all, she's the one that "really" taps the PM, just like it's the electoral college that "really" elects the president, right? So blame the queen for Tony Blair, it's her fault! And you can blame the electoral college for Bush while you're at it! crazyeddie 05:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

All right, I'll bite the troll bait. Just out of morbid curiosity, what does that latest userbox of yours mean? That you are happy that 3000 innocent people died? Or just congratulating Osama for getting away with it? (Yet another reason I'm not happy about the Iraq War...) crazyeddie 05:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits - avoid incivility, personal attacks, POV

Please refrain from making uncivil comments such as you made on the Anti-Americanism talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck's reverts doubtless were well-intended but run counter to my belief in freedom of expression. Accordingly I have restored the reverted material. Raymond Arritt 02:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Liberty in North Korea. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

re: your comments on talk north korea

If you find an NGO source on the status of the political parties of North Korea, please mention it on Talk:North Korea. TransUtopian 13:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks (re:Anti-Americanism)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Marskell 15:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just ducky...

I've noticed that another user, The duck (talk • contribs), has some opinions and mannerisms very similar to yours. This normally wouldn't be a problem, of course, but he's also been voting and making some unsavory comments on user pages. I hope that he goes away soon... if not I might have to request a CheckUser. It would be a shame if the owner of the account were to be permanantly blocked because he was voting via a sockpuppet account. – ClockworkSoul 17:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

Please refrain from adding images into articles where the intent is to provoke, offend, or push a POV agenda. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 20:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

I just wanna have a NPOV here. The article is full of crap about our nation. It's not like how it describes it. Doesn't say a good thing about America in there. And you know that it's not the way it is. (LonghornJohnny 18:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

How dare I?

I do dare because the article is biased. Let's talk about it on the talk page of the article. (LonghornJohnny 18:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm not your "mate" or whatever you call me. This article is crap and you know it too. It;s full of hatred. It gives me the feeling that it's been written by the people who are holding up the "Yankee go home" sign. It's crap. It needs to be rewritten. Now, I have proposed to fix it, but you denied it and gave me no reasons. (LonghornJohnny 18:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC))


Look at your userboxes: Viva North Korea, dont think so. It does not matter what my userboxes say. What matters is that this article needs to be straightened out. Look at the talk page. (LonghornJohnny 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
We're not here to debate socialism. The page about Anti-Americansim needs to be fixed. And I will fix it. You can comment on the talk page if you wanna. (LonghornJohnny 18:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
I don't think that a commie is the best source for this kind of article. You need to wake up. It's not 1917 any more. Would take you to a chat room to kick your butt. Let me know if you're willing. (LonghornJohnny 18:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC))


I'm waiting for you in [9] in the Current Events chatroom. Last chance to withdraw :) (LonghornJohnny 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

No Personal Attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:LonghornJohnny. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Personal attacks also made to User talk:Tester1 ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 18:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning "ownership" of userpages

Your userpage does not belong to you. It is not the case that "permission" is required, though there is convention. Please see Wikipedia:Userpage:

  • "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the Wikipedia project. It is a mistake to think of it as a homepage..."
  • "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community..."
    • "Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others."
    • "Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere."
  • "What can I not have on my userpage .... Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia.

Please be civil in discussing this matters with other editors. — ERcheck (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Your 9/11 userbox might be considered polemical – trolling, even – and it certainly doesn't aid us in our goal of building an encyclopedia. I urge you to reconsider its placement. – ClockworkSoul 04:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I too urge you to remove this userbox from your User Page. I believe it is a serious contradiction to userbox content restrictions which state "userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." This box is both. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 05:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Frogsprog, please take down your 9/11 user box. It really isn't helping build an encyclopedia. Thanks. --Guinnog 06:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Juche?

Hey, just reading your comments on another page (LonghornJohnny) and I noticed that you referred to the DPRK as 'Socialist.' Nay! I say. Juche! (as you are probably aware).

Ben 05:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ...you've been blocked before, so you know the routine.--MONGO 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your message to me about this warning. I think MONGO has a point; while I do not necessarily agree with him that you are engaging in simplistic vandalism, the effect of putting your 'new tag' on the GWB article, and of your 9/11 user box (which I'm glad to see you've taken down by the way), has been to disrupt the encyclopedia rather than to lead to progress. Why don't you have a look at those articles I pointed you to on the afghan war? They need some work and you could actually do some good there instead of annoying people. --Guinnog 16:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that 'tag' (or a similar one) used on any other page in Wikipedia? I'm not sure that it was vandalism, just annoying to some people. Duke53 | Talk 16:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism in various countries

Hey Frogsprog, you tagged Anti-Americanism in various countries for deletion saying the redirect needs to be deleted so the article can be rewritten. I don't really understand what you mean and was wondering if you could explain. I've restored the redirect for now because I don't really understand why it needs to be deleted. If you want to write another article, you can. The redirect doesn't prevent a new article from replacing it at some point. Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Template:Common vandal

I just noticed you creating it. I was wondering, what did you have in mind when you created it? Peter O. (Talk) 17:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Common vandal

Template:Common vandal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of an image

First you said that it was because of "formatting" then it was because it "didn't look right"; this isn't a Chinese restaurant ... you don't get to pick one from column 'A' and another from column 'B'. Duke53 | Talk 17:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

KFA?

Hey are you, by chance, a member of the KFA? Ben 21:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Att userpage

Just wanted to let you know that the template you created above is up for deletion here, thought you might want to add your two cents. People Powered 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

INdef blocked

YOur edits are nothing but trolling and vandalism so you are now indefinitely blocked. Replacement of this edit was the last straw[10]--MONGO 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/o/User_talk%7EFrogsprog_e57f.html"