User talk:Frotz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there.
Comments by unregistered editors or trolls may be removed without comment.


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)

Please join the discussion about this here. Thanks again. (→Netscott) 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)

[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)

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

[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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Be cool, please

Please look carefully before accusing people so harshly. Calm down, please. I replied at User_talk:Menchi#Misunderstanding_re:_Muhammad. 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)

[edit] 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 (|-|) Oegawagga-)-(- 09:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [2]. 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)

[edit] blake image on Muhammad

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources (if you disagree, please do explain how he does), as demonstrated by experts' reviews of his works. e.g. [3] 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)

[edit] Cigar health effects

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

[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)