User talk:Frotz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia: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)
[edit] 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. (→Netscott) 18:48, 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)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia: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)
[edit] 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))
[edit] 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. [1] futurebird 21:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Frotz661, also note Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion (untainted).Proabivouac 23:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unecessary template
Hello Frotz661, could you add {{db-author}} to that template you created? As you can see it is no longer needed. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
