User talk:Froglich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frog limbs.jpg

Rule #1[edit]

At various times, I will get hungry, shoot out my long sticky tongue, and make something disappear on my talk page. The things *you* spend the longest time composing are usually the most delicious things I see. Also exceptionally tasty things are those cut-n-pasted triangle and octagon symbols; why, they're as divine as a Snickers Blizzard. Mmmm! ***SNAP!*** Yum-yum. Croak!--Froglich (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

High explosives and energetics[edit]

Hi Froglich, It is my understanding that high explosives are not particularly more energetic than low explosives. They explode in a shorter time (they detonate rather than deflagrate), but they do not provide significantly more energy per unit mass. In any case I explained that concern on the talk page when I added the {{dubious}} tag, so it would be good to engage the issue there rather than simply removing the tag. --Trovatore (talk) 00:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Croak! (Taken care of.)--Froglich (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Trovatore (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw's "Jewish Question"[edit]

(Shaw) was a very complicated person who still arouses great passion. The current article is a sincere attempt by a number of editors, over a considerable length of time, to present a balanced summary of the man, while not glossing over some of his more bizarre views and sayings. Totally changing the POV of an article like this may even be justified, but please raise any questions about the current (balanced?) view, and your desire to bring us into line with (say) Conservapedia, on the talk page for the article, rather than making wholesale changes - which are bound to be reverted, if not by me then by some "friends of Shaw" who are much less critical of him than me! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of his "bizarre views" which we should not be glossing over....
"We ought to tackle the Jewish question by admitting the right of States to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable, but insisting that they do it as humanely as they can afford to..." -- (Shaw, to Beatrice Webb, February 1938) --Froglich (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
So bring these things up on the talk page. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia.--Froglich (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Memory hole preservation clause[edit]

Here is the section various persons keep removing (other editors are requested to boldly revert such deletions):

Eugenics[edit]

(snip) At a meeting of the Eugenics Education Society of 3 March 1910 he suggested the need to use a "lethal chamber" to solve their problem. Shaw said:

We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment ...A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.[1]

Shaw also called for the development of a "deadly" but "humane" gas for the purpose of killing, many at a time, those unfit to live.[2]

In a newsreel interview released on 5 March 1931, dealing with alternatives to the imprisonment of criminals, Shaw says

You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can't justify your existence, if you're not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself.[3][4]

The Jewish question[edit]

Shaw would publicly expound desires for "humane" extermination into the late 1930s,[5] even as Germany was already well entrenched under the sway of Adolf Hitler (whose antisemitic autobiography Mein Kampf had been in print since 1923, and of which Shaw was still supportive of well into the War.[6]), with anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany having escalated steadily since 1933 (in accordance with the Nazi Party's "25-Step Program" published in 1920), with German Jews stripped of citizenship in 1935.

In private correspondence to the Fabian socialist Beatrice Webb on February 6, 1938, Shaw was unequivocal in defense of government-orchestrated extermination of "undesirables", but concerned with portrayal and avoidance of embarrassment:

We ought to tackle the Jewish question by admitting the right of States to make eugenic experiments by weeding out any strains that they think undesirable, but insisting that they do it as humanely as they can afford to, and not to shock civilisation by such misdemeanours as the expulsion and robbery of Einstein."[7]

In the wake of the Holocaust (during which the use of "humane"[8] Zyklon B was prominent), some of Shaw's defenders would either confuse or downplay his pre-WWII statements as satirical in nature or actually mockery of the eugenics movement.[9][10]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Stone, Dan (2002). Breeding superman: Nietzsche, race and eugenics in Edwardian and interwar Britain. Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-0-85323-997-0. 
  2. ^ Conolly, Leonard (2009). Bernard Shaw and the BBC. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 189. ISBN 0-8020-8920-8. 
  3. ^ "George Bernard Shaw reopens capital punishment controversy". Paramount British Pictures. 5 March 1931. Retrieved 31 July 2011. 
  4. ^ A transcript was prepared for Fox News:Beck, Glenn (25 January 2010). "The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die". Fox News. Retrieved 20 January 2011. 
  5. ^ Revel, Jean Francois (2009). "The Intellectual and Moral Origins of Socialism". Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Soviet Era. Encounter Books. p. 96. ISBN 1-594-03264-5. "Shaw, concerned with finding an efficient way to purge the enemies of socialism, displayed a fine talent for prognostication in the BBC's highbrow periodical The Listener in 1933, when he urged chemists to devise a "humane" gas that would cause an "instantaneous and painless" death" - a civilized sort of gas, lethal of course but not cruel. It may be recalled that Nazi mass-murderer Adolf Eichmann, at his trial in Jerusalem in 1962, invoked in his defense the "humane" character of Zyklon B, the chemical used to exterminate the Jews in the Shoah. 
  6. ^ "George Bernard Shaw: Can His Reputation Survive His Dark Side?". Boryana Books. 1 February 2012. Retrieved 27 June 2013. 
  7. ^ Watson, George (1998). The Lost Literature of Socialism. Lutterworth Press. pp. 87–88. ISBN 0-718-89227-5. 
  8. ^ Watson, George (1998). "Marx and the Holocaust". The Lost Literature of Socialism. Lutterworth Press. pp. 87–88. ISBN 0-718-89227-5. The humanity of gas was one day to be Adolf Eichmann's defense in Jerusalem on Zyklon-B 
  9. ^ Kevles, Daniel J. (1995). In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. p. 86. ISBN 0-520-05763-5. Shaw...did not spare the eugenics movement his unpredictable mockery...[he] acted the outrageous buffoon at times. 
  10. ^ Searle (1976: 92): "This was widely felt to be a joke in the worst possible taste".

trayvon martin[edit]

I've been watching your work on the Trayvon Martin articles and I'm satisfied that you're alert to the problem of bias. You will be pleased to learn that regarding the Tea Party movement article, your suggestion regarding mention of Karl Denninger is being acted upon.[1] The article was an enormous mess when I started working on it a few months ago. Extremely partisan and tendentious editors were trying to WP:OWN it. It had become a collection of what I describe as "Daily Kos cruft," which is a collection of negative trivia about a conservative person or group that members of progressive online communities such as DKos find amusing, but are otherwise useless. A lot of that stuff has now been chainsawed out and it's looking better. Thanks for the suggestion and you are welcome to join us. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ribbit! (Thanks)

Also wanted to give some unsolicited advice re some of your edits/talk comments. We all certainly have our own beliefs as to what happened in this case, and the trial etc. In that I think we probably agree about more than we disagree. But some of your comments, while maybe true from a real world argument standpoint, are not well grounded in wikipedia policy. Fighting over the event/trial "truth" leads down a bad path for the wiki - keep the arguments based on policy, and what sources say about the event, and its much easier to hold off the barbarians. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I can do much better than "beliefs"; I have reality at my disposal: Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton is an *employee* of MSNBC. Let the meanings and portents of that sink in.
The problem with a policy-perfect article written by editors who aren't well-versed in the "real world" is that while what they create will look pretty, it will be a poor informative tool. Most of the problems with the Trayvon Martin article stem from just such a disparity. By mentioning various things on the Talk page, I prompt other editors to scratch their curiosity-itch. I'm actually rather pleased with the amount of truth the Shooting article contained before I arrived; I wouldn't have been surprised to find media mendacity not mentioned at all.--Froglich (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Most-active volcanoes[edit]

Category:Most-active volcanoes, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Croak! (Nuked it myself.)--Froglich (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and Acquittal[edit]

I don't know why you removed Maharishi Ayurveda from the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, or the templates from Acquittal which seemed appropriate (including "For other uses, see Not guilty." but I've restored them. And please use WP:Edit summaries. I want to AGF, but normally, especially for Acquittal, I'd just revert as vandalism. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not delete Maharishi Ayurveda; I created a new section for Traditional Indian Medicine, and moved Maharishi Ayurveda into it. The tag on the Acquittal is a five-year old eyesore which was addressed a long time ago.--Froglich (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
No, they weren't. Yes, the one source template was wrong and I've not reinstated that, but the others are still appropriate - it clearly needs more sources, it only discusses America and England and Wales so it needs globalising, and you have again removed the 'other uses' template with no explanation. I don't know of any guidelines that say that because problems haven't been addressed for 5 years you can remove the template. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't have reverted you at the list article if you'd used an edit summary, I would have just fixed the problem with naturopathy[2] - as it was I couldn't easily see what you'd done. Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Naturopathy fixed.--Froglich (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Historical revisionism (negationism)[edit]

Concerning your edit on Historical revisionism (negationism): your paragraph regarding the Confederacy needs additional sources. I just saved it from deletion, but still, it needs those sources to be kept in the article. Moreover, someone put in a paragraph concerning black soldiers in the Confederate Army. Since I am not a great expert on this subject: could you have a look at it? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Croak! (Taken care of.) Thanks for alerting me to the mice playing while the cat was away. I added one reference which, IMO, is more than comprehensive (further citations could be lifted straight from its own encyclopedic footnotes). I also removed all that other editor's unsupported original research.--Froglich (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Commie Chameleons[edit]

Global Warming Crap (AKA: Let's get this Stalinism out of the way)[edit]

FYI, this is a notification that all articles that discuss climate change "broadly defined" are under discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision at WP:ARBCC. Your insistance on pushing an extremely fringe POV and using the talk page as a forum for those views is not allowed. I have reverted your comments with the edit summary WP:NOTAFORUM. The next section below also demonstrates you are WP:NOTHERE to create an encyclopedia, but to push a fringe POV. Stop it. You really do deserve a topic ban. The climate change area is a very sensitive one, and topic bans are handed out for such behavior. -- Brangifer

Hello, Froglich. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am in very good company with Harold Lewis: --Froglich (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
"...I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."

Whistling Past The Graveyard of Dope Theories Hastily Renamed by Their Fraud Guzzlers[edit]

(Pursuant the bullynazi tactics in the preceding section...)

Don't everybody freak out all at once, now; ya hear? It's only the dead rising from their restless slumber to exact their horrible vengeance. (Watching you folks have your brains clawed out by ravenous ghouls in the years to come will be the epitome of schadenfreude.)--Froglich (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Marc Morano[edit]

Froglich, Concerning the article on Marc Morano, I am looking for objective editors to help bring this article to a neutral state. I noticed that you participated a little and I would hope that you could join in on the talk page to help make this article more neutral and also rid the poor nature of the structure of the article, which is clearly not at the level of quality needed for a Bio and does not even come close to the examples of other Bio's on WP. I look forward to your help if you can. Thanks Jvaughters (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the Morano, et al, articles go, at this point I'd rather they were pure drivel than half-assed mediocrity. I.e., it's better that a skeptical reader be easily tipped off that he's reading tripe (and thereby simply invert everything he sees for the truth), than encounter a muddle. I have become reasonably convinced (indeed rather easily) that Wikipedia (like almost everything else subject to O'Sullivan's Law) is going to remain a spigot of carbon tax-fueled propaganda until such time as the reality of a now cooling planet (a chill which the Orwellians are straining with Herculean effort to blame on CO2) dictates that either Wikipedia collapses into laughingstock status or that the cabal of administrators responsible for jackboot tactics on these issues (see above) are bounced out. 2014 is the year Khabibullo Abdusamatov set for the beginning of the next mini ice-age back in early 2012 (and solar tepidity is proceeding right on cue), so it shouldn't take too long for things to shake out one way or the other.
Major cracks in the peer-reviewed IPCC blarney are also beginning to manifest, so it really is the beginning of the end of the line for them.--Froglich (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I see your point, however, we were able to get to a low end mediocrity point. I completely agree with your assessment except for one thing. It could be very long time to flesh out one way or the other. What absolutely drives me insane is the disregard for the Scientific Method and the very definition of Science. There is no place for consensus other than to advance a theory, but these folks are taking consensus as proof. Looking forward to reading the links you provided and also agree that this has the potential to collapse down on them. They certainly set themselves up for it. Jvaughters (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I really liked O'Sullivan's Law, I have always had similar belief, I had no clue there was a term for it. I always described it as Natural Human Government, meaning what occurs naturally if forces are not already in place to prevent it. Good Stuff!! I was familiar with the Russian Theory through other articles, but nice to see the more direct source. I am a bit confused about IPCC blarney article. I would appreciate if you could clarify the point on that one. Thanks Jvaughters (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Cosmonauts[edit]

Re: "A history of lying will always be relevant" - Are you claiming that Tyson has a history of lying? Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I would hardly be the first to maintain that, and long before this quote piffle. Throw his name and "lie" at Google with a custom date search before August to weed out the Bush stuff. You can even filter out climate sites and conservatives and still get a face-full of RS -- not that this place would ever entertain the least taste of it anytime soon. He's a professional blabbermouth paid to tell the plebes what their "correct" opinions should be in a colorful manner, and knows where his bread is buttered. It's served him well his entire career while more ethical unsung astros are freezing their asses off on Chilean mountaintops.--Froglich (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Younger Dryas impact hypothesis[edit]

The Zombie Apocalypse is here![edit]

Oh my dear god; what's this?!? Will the horrors never end?--Froglich (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No! They're ravening for human flesh!--Froglich (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dreams from My Real Father[edit]

Please note that I have made a comment at Talk:Dreams from My Real Father (see here) regarding the content dispute in which you and several other editors have been involved. If you believe other editors are repeatedly reverting your changes to the lead section of this article in defiance of the NPOV policy — even after the lengthy discussion at the NPOV noticeboard — you need to report them now at the Edit Warring noticeboard page (WP:EWN). If you continue to wage a one-person-against-the-world edit war, I will report you at WP:EWN myself (assuming someone else doesn't take action first). Edit warring is not acceptable as a means of handling a dispute, even in a case where you are certain you are in the right and everyone else is blind to the facts. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I am quite disappointed that your earnest defense of quality controls at Wikipedia consists of threatening the one editor in the disputes who gives a damn about them.--Froglich (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The FALN fan club[edit]

Oscar López Rivera[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Oscar Lopez Rivera". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 May 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ribbit! (There, dude.)--Froglich (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Oscar Lopez Rivera, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

FALN a Stalinist terrorist group that ...[edit]

I suggested just changing to FALN a terrorist group. I am not disagreeing with you entirely, but in the talk section I cite the article of Robert Bella on the surveillance (fun reading, specially when they replaced all the powder in bullets, dynamite and fuses with burnt charcoal from coconuts) that they used to capture FALN members, and they just didn't seem to spend much time on ideology. They worked really hard to avoid being followed and did not socialize together much. There was not much cafe-style ideology to these guys, they were nuts-and-bolts bombers and robbers. Just a suggestion. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

While the average recruit in these terrorist groups was dumber than a box of hair, the ringleaders knew what they wanted; and what they wanted was "Implementation of the Stalinist ideological position." As such, I see no reason not to take them at face value.[/i], particularly in hindsight with the knowledge that an eventual dictatorship (in the Stalinist mold) is what was "implemented" in every case other violent groups similar to the FALN managed succssful putsches during the Cold War. ...This is also why I'm altering the various unqualified "nationalist" references; as claiming to be nationalists was a base propaganda position for the myriad violent groups attempting to turn their locales into Soviet satellites. (To make a contemporary analogy -- aside from the obvious Ukrainian one in which all of the "Nationalists" are on Putin's payroll -- it'd be as if an Islamist terrorist group seeking to impose Shari'a were to claim it was "nationalist".)--Froglich (talk) 06:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
(Onlookers note that "Stalinist" has now been changed to "Marxist-Leninist".)--Froglich (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

May Day Dissembling[edit]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Alejandrina Torres, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jmundo (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've asked the editor who gave you this warning to explain it. Maybe you are clear what it was for, but I'm not, nor do I see how it can be justified as an 'only warning'. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The warning was for re-adding contentious info without proper secondary sources to BLP articles. He/She can use the article's discussion to seek consensus.--Jmundo (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This person (Jmundo) is a tendentious editor who has no interest in the Wikipedia project aside from his unwavering constant of butchering historical articles toward a propaganda perspective devoid of either factual or stylistic merit. -- That the FALN was a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization (indeed an archetypical one) is not contentious, that supporting sources exist is not an issue (I just added three more references, all easily found given the large body of scholarly work in the area; I could easily add a dozen more) and that the various convicted FALN members would not otherwise meet Wikipedia's notability requirements sans their role in the FALN is also not contentious -- therefore their active participation in said organization (and subsequent conviction) is properly placed in the lede of their articles, not buried three sections down. (IMO none of these FALN personages merit individual articles, an opinion buttressed by the fact they're mainly copy-dumps of each other.) Jmundo's cut-n-paste boilerplate is simply an attempt to obfuscate and intimidate. It has also not escaped my attention that he has refrained from simultaneous reversion of the one FALN personage article (Rivera) which is more heavily trafficked by other editors unsympathetic to his position (said greater traffic resultant from the mediation request noted above).--Froglich (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Did you notice that he's accused me of tracking his edits? I haven't been of course, this page is on my watch list as you probably know. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Treyakov on Nuclear Winter[edit]

I will try and explain why I don't think this matter should be included in the NW article.

The point at issue is the allegation that Kondratyev, Golyitsin, et. al., fabricated data on the instructions of the KGB. Tretyakov is the only source for this allegation. You say the source is good, but controversial claims require strong sources, and Tretykov is not good here. His claim has never been corroborated - repeated, yes, but repetition is not corroboration. It is significant that Laurence Badash, who has written an academic account of the politics of nuclear winter (A Nuclear Winter's Tale, published by MIT) does not think Treyakov's claim worthy of inclusion. You mention the Mitrokhin archive, but as far as I know the fabrication of data on NW is not mentioned there. All that makes the claim WP:FRINGE.

There is also the inherent unlikelihood of the claim, which I have analysed in detail here: Kondratyev's paper, which Tretyakov says was unpublished, was in fact published by Colorado State University (Atmospheric Science Paper No.261, Fort Collins, 1976). See the link to the article here.

You say that the KGB would have overseen joint research projects; maybe, but Tretyakov does not say the research was overseen by the KGB, he says it was commissioned by the KGB, who ordered data to be fabricated. It is improbable that fabricated data could have been smuggled into a refereed publication in the West, and no-one other than Tretyakov has said it was.

You say that the fraud alleged by Tretyakov is in keeping with what we would expect from the Soviet Security Services. Sure, but that's speculation, not evidence.

As a compromise I left a summary of Tretyakov's claim on the NW page. I was disappointed to see that you did not accept it. May I suggest that you also offer a compromise? Pelarmian (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Given what is broadly known (via the Mitrokhin archive and the Venona project) of Soviet active measures, it is neither "controversial" nor "unlikely" when an original source (e.g., a Russian employed in state agencies) claims the KGB has manufactured//fabricated/massaged/guided/cooked/whatever data with clear propaganda value to Soviet ambitions -- because such was clearly within KGB parameters. To deny such is fringe. (At this point it is confirmed that the Soviets fronted virtually the entirety of the so-called peace movement during the Cold War, with direct asset-control of the major groups.) The idea that the KGB wouldn't have oversight of something it commissioned is absurd. Attempting to bury Soviet orchestration (per Tretyakov) in a 2007 book-publishing section was disingenuous; it properly belongs front-and-center in the timeline sequence when it occurred (1982), not when it was written about over two decades later.--Froglich (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Eleanor's seats[edit]

Saw the revert @ Eleanor_(automobile). Agreed; leaving out that bit is better to keep the article grammar in an encyclopedic form. Thanks! Cudak888 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ribbit!--Froglich (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wagnerian rock[edit]

Hello! Would you like to comment on this discussion regarding the issues at the Wagnerian rock page? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks! Johnny338 (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Croak! <looking at it>--Froglich (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Of Human Feelings[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Braap! <okay>--Froglich (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Vince Foster suicide[edit]

I don't see how my extension of the lede can be described as a political diatribe. It just summarises items from the main article, which is what a lede is for. Valetude (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The main bodies of "conspiracy theory" research into Foster stem from the work Hugh Sprunt, Hugh Turley, and Miguel Rodgriguez. None of these people are "right wing" politically. (Neither, for that matter, is Michael Rivero, who first noticed the discrepancy between the black revolver in an ABC News photo and the silver automatic the man owned.) *Actual* "right-wing" luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh shilled the Starr Report, as did the rank-and-file Republican political establishment (which basically coughed nervously and then leapt at the salacious Lewinsky thing instead). ...I would recommend reading the article's talk page before contributing.--Froglich (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uglification projects[edit]

Cowboy Bebop and MOS:AM[edit]

Hi Froglich,

I've reverted your edits to Cowboy Bebop and MOS:AM. About MOS:AM, I don't think Gabriel Yuji was confused by the old wording, and think the simpler wording was better than what you changed it to. About Cowboy Bebop, the character section was just a cast list, so Gabriel Yuji was correct in saying that it went against MOS:AM. For Cowboy Bebop, since the character section is long and detailed, it has its own article at List of Cowboy Bebop characters. There shouldn't be a separate cast list in addition to that list article, and whether or not a cast list is titled "cast" or "characters" is irrelevant to that. If you want to make a character section in Cowboy Bebop that provides a short summary of the information at List of Cowboy Bebop characters, that would probably be fine. However, such a character section should be more than just a cast list, and should probably be written in prose rather than as a table. Calathan (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're both wrong: Either the MoS requires a character section, in which case he's wrong, or he's right, in which case the MoS is wrong in demanding a Character section in the first place. Alternatively, I'm right, and the two of you should stand back and let me fix the mess in both articles.--Froglich (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The new, simpler wording you've made for that section on MOS:AM seems fine to me. However, I still don't think there was confusion before, and don't think the table has a place in the Cowboy Bebop article. As I said above, having a character section that provides a brief summary of the separate character page would be fine. It is just listing the voice actors in a table that is problematic. Calathan (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
As the Cowboy Bebop edits the two of you were preferring left the article without any Character section, there is obviously confusion (note that the existence of an extended "main" article for the characters does not mandate there not be one in a show's article). If a reader wanted to know, quickly, who voiced Jet Black in the English dub, the article would not be useful to him. Thus, a table entry sums things up nicely, and is visually attractive to boot.--Froglich (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ugly Ebola articles[edit]

You moved this article to "2014 Ebola pandemic": I've moved it back. While the Ebola situation is very serious indeed, it's not yet a pandemic. Without evidence that official WP:RS are calling it a pandemic, changing the article title to declare it a pandemic is likely to alarm readers unnecessarily, to no useful effect. -- The Anome (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now deleted that redirect, as it is both rececently created and implausible, thus meeting the speedy deletion criteria. I've also cleaned up the redirects created by that move, and, per consensus on the article's talk page, temporarily locked the page against further page moves. Please don't try to change the name of the page again without discussing it with other editors on the talk page. -- The Anome (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The article itself cites the World Health Organization's usage of "exponential". Not every pandemic must be global in scope (it was certainly impossible to judge such when the Ancient Greeks coined the term); the definition merely requires multiple areas, and the disease is indeed present in multiple dis-contiguous areas. Lastly, the present name of the article is a clunker.--Froglich (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


If you wish to restore the material I deleted on the Eboala virus epidemic in west Africa article, please provide a citation. --Aflafla1 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need a citation because all the text consisted of were explanations of what the accompanying graphs depicted. E.g., the straight line on the logarithmic chart, etc.--Froglich (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Ebola (disambiguation). Comment on content, not on fellow editors. [13] . Stop your disruption now, including accusations of bullying just because guidelines and others disagree with you. By the way, archiving messages is preferred to deleting, and your rule #1 implies WP:IDHT. Stop now, or else I will escalate. How many final warnings do you have? Widefox; talk 21:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

For better or worse, WP:REMOVED does allow users to delete most things from their talk pages; it's usually not the best way to handle a dispute, and many people will find it intentionally uncivil, but it's not forbidden. Note that The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents — deleting stuff may make it harder for others to find the history of a dispute, but it's all in the page history for anyone who cares to dig.— Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
To clarify my English, !Stop now! refers to the long-term disruptive editing, combined with the disregard for other editors shown by rule #1 - actively having a willful disregard for feedback from other editors. Removal is allowed, but that underlines the WP:IDHT style of disruption. Widefox; talk 21:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, did I make something stupid of yours disappear when it wandered too close to my personal space? That's too bad. You should really keep a closer eye on your stuff, ideally, far away from here. (BTW, Rich? This rule he thinks exists isn't the only non-existent rule he's accused me of breaking today. Perhaps he should spend more time reading Wikipedia's rules instead of slinging their links around like an impotent playground bully -- who, I shall take this opportunity to inform, is not the only one around here who knows how to submit to the Noticeboard.)--Froglich (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Meteotsunami[edit]

Do you have a source that establishes that the images of storm surge damage you added at meteotsunami were associated with a meteotsunami and not an ordinary storm surge? The sources don't establish that. Geogene (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wave-train pile-up doesn't cause the oceanic water column to suddenly move laterally over the coast in a sustained rush at 30mph like a tsunami (Hurricane Ike witness in the one source, Haiyan video the other). I'm on the run at the moment, and couldn't locate a meteo paper from Google's first couple page of returns, but you may be interested in the meteotsunami / tropical cyclone reference on p87 here. Note that some media organizations refer to the inundation of the Irrawaddy by Cyclone Nargis as a meteotsunami. --Froglich (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Ebola virus disease. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Froglich (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

This block has been maliciously applied by a duplicitous administrator with a history of lying and siding with serial fabricators. 3RR has not been violated in the Ebola article (onlookers will observe that my last edit on the hatnote was not a reversion, but a tweak of a different editor's reversion). There have been no submissions to the Noticeboard nor complaints of incivility or disruption aside from the singular Widefox, who has been caught lying on more than one occasion, yet remains untouched by Mssr. Richwales, who is certainly aware of them (since he had to go snooping through this TP's trash-pail for the garbage I delete in order to even discover the excuse he was looking for). Further background: I have not allowed Widefox to post on this TP since the 20th.Froglich (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, and in this context, it is immaterial whether you went over 3RR. Otherwise, this isn't the correct forum for criticizing how an admin has handled a situation. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

No edit-warring occurred. You haven't even bothered to check.--Froglich (talk) 12:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
In which case, I suggest you create a new unblock request which focuses on this instead of criticizing the admin.PhilKnight (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
OK.--Froglich (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Froglich (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

No edit-warring occurred. Froglich (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring did occur. Mike VTalk 04:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Froglich (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

The edit of 00:39, 29 October 2014 (the last one listed above) is not a revert. Removed, the others are not within a 24hr period. (The first edit listed is more than 24hrs before the 2nd, so the first four edits as a package are also well outside the boundary of "gaming the system" territory.) According to 3RR, the normal penalty for a 3RR violation is 24hrs anyway. This duration has now passed.Froglich (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for 3RR, you're blocked for edit warring, which indeed you did, and escalating blocks for repeated edit warring are quite standard. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

The fact that you have made three unsuccessful requests to have your block reviewed suggests to me that some further explanation is in order, so as to help you better understand what people are seeing as a problem here, and to help you either to formulate a proper and effective unblock request, or else to understand what you really need to do to keep from having the same thing happen to you again after the current block expires.

The reason I blocked you (a decision which I continue to believe was proper) was that you repeatedly added a hatnote link to the Ebola virus disease article, even though your change had been reverted by three different editors (Doc James, Zad68, and QuackGuru), and even though there was (and still is) an ongoing discussion at Talk:Ebola virus disease regarding your desire to expand the hatnote.

This is not, and never was, a WP:3RR violation issue. I acknowledge that you did not literally violate the 3RR rule — but edit warring does not require a 3RR violation; anyone who repeatedly restores his/her preferred version of an article in defiance of a clear indication that others disagree is engaging in edit warring and may be blocked if necessary in order to prevent disruption to Wikipedia.

Whether you wanted to accept it or not, you have had it demonstrated to you numerous times, by numerous people, in multiple places (not just by Widefox here on your talk page), that other people have misgivings about your proposed change. You may believe your understanding of policy is correct and everyone else is obviously in the wrong, but even so, that is not a valid excuse for edit warring (except in a tiny subset of cases that don't apply here).

Once your block expires and you are able to edit again, please be more respectful of other editors and their viewpoints. If you still think others are egregiously misinterpreting policy by refusing to see things the way you do, there are accepted ways to escalate a dispute and have it resolved properly — but repeatedly trying to impose your own material without paying attention to others is not the way to do it.

Understand, however, that if you simply go back to the very same type of defiant, aggressive, confrontational edit-warring / arguing / attacking / "don't-anyone-dare-criticize-me" posturing as before after your block expires, you are very likely to end up being blocked again (and for much longer than three days). I am not saying this to try to intimidate or threaten you; rather, this is the way Wikipedia works when someone repeatedly and blatantly ignores the accepted norms.

I would also strongly recommend that you reconsider your "Rule #1" practice of promptly deleting criticisms and warnings from your talk page. Although users are generally given wide latitude to manage their talk pages as they see fit, removing criticism right away like you've been doing — especially in an overall context like this — tells others that you do not care what they think and do not want any sort of extended, collaborative discussion of the way you are operating on Wikipedia. If you persist in doing this, any objectionable editing behaviour on your part is just going to be seen in a worse light. This isn't the generally accepted way people collaborate here, and even if you feel the rules technically permit your "Rule #1", I believe you would be far, far better off modifying or simply dropping this stance.

This is how I see the situation — though if other admins disagree with me and believe the overall picture here did not justify this or some other sanction, I hope he/she/they will chime in. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC) 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola[edit]

Looks like you and the "experts" you quoted didn't quite get the outcome (this time) you were expecting. Oh well, at least mankind gets to live another day. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)