User talk:Frosty/archive7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Response

Hi, you dropped a note on my talk page. I'm responding to your post. The information I deleted has no business being saved as a template and reads as more of a poorly written personal attack on some minor website. That sort of garbage has no place on Wikipedia. I guess I should have posted why it was deleted, but I assumed that anyone reading the content that was deleted would understand why it was removed. I could give you more, but I don't think that's necessary. I'm surprised that you saw fit to restore it since you come off as pretty intelligent. Here's a quote as an example: "is modern evidence of copying documents without any originality and does not deserve the same online communal publishing rights and recognition as wikipedia." That's pretty awful. Also, I think it would have been more appropriate to post your comments to the talk page of the template in question.

Infinityseed (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry I was using a semi-automated program to revert vandalism and most instances of blanking get "a red flag" so to speak, so I didn't look too deeply into it (my bad there, it appears I should have). As for your complaint, you're quite correct the version was far from neutral and was an attack on the site. However, that seems to be the result of somebody making changing back in 2014 that slipped through the system and should have been reverted. I have reverted the edits back to a prior version (dates back to 2009) which essentially contains what a template doc should (a simple explanation of how to use the template). I also reverted your blanking of the main template, as it should be the way it is supposed to be now. If you see things like this where templates have been trashed with biased content, check the history, we try and revert stuff like this but we occasionally miss stuff. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, should be sorted now :) —Frosty ☃ 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Why?

why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trailerparkmethqueen (talk • contribs)

If you are referring to why I reverted you, it was because you inserted a sentence that made little sense into the middle of a ref tag, which would have messed up the code on the page. Please make sure what you add: Makes sense, is sourced and doesn't mess the page up. —Frosty ☃ 03:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unnessessary removal?

Hi there, I have recently contributed to the Wikipedia page of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. I have been a major fan ever since 1997 and I wanted to find out where to purchase tickets for the Cardinals game against the Nationals this weekend. As I opened the article, I was immediately flooded with misleading information. Being the technical savant I am, I decided to fix the mistake that somebody inserted into your page. I am glad we both share the same love for the Cardinals, but I am a little shocked by your ignorance. Please put the changes I made back into effect and this whole situation can go away.

~~tHANK yOU~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.114.222 (talk) 04:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to re-insert blatant vandalism into a page. —Frosty ☃ 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

why block

Why you block me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.86.21 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't? —Frosty ☃ 06:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

The Signpost: 08 April 2015


New, but old news - from October 2014

Hello, Frosty. I wanted to thank you for undoing this edit to my sandbox page your recent contributions — although you will see I did not make it, but it was anon user 174.45.28.158 vandalizing my page this edit to User:Jahnka—

Drop in anytime to watch the further battles in my sandbox :-) 

Thanx,

- Jahnka (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're welcome. —Frosty ☃ 02:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

The Signpost: 27 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Catfish

Whats a catfish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.33.133.137 (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

A fish that resembles a cat, or a cat that resembles a fish? I forget which one, but it's delicious and cat fish like. —Frosty ☃ 11:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

Sorry

sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issacboss (talk • contribs) 05:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

What did you do? I forget. I'll forgive you though. —Frosty ☃ 00:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Amazing work reverting vandalism!

I still cannot believe how you manage to undo said vandalism while I'm pressing the 'undo' button. May your work in reverting vandalism never be hampered. Dakar (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou :) I see that you are quite new here, I am able to do it quickly through various anti-vandalism tools (see: WP:HUGGLE, WP:TWINKLE). Since your account is only a day or so old you can't use these yet but once you've been here a while/made plenty more edits you can also start using these tools. For now keep up the good work! —Frosty ☃ 06:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

About Austin!

Hi there; my name is Callum, or JBFan4, and I would like to excuse you for Austin Alexander (who has been block for spamming) has threatened everyone and I would consider to report him to something else. Thank you :-)

JBFan4 (talk) 01:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The user has already been blocked? Then there is not really much more that needs to be done unless they come back. —Frosty ☃ 03:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit

You say you have deleted my edit why? Someone keeps editing the Little Blossoms information why have you not contacted them and removed THEIR edit! --Strategic1900

You messed up the syntax of the article text by adding an extra line. It appeared to be an edit test, sorry about that. But please don't add extra lines in the middle of sentences/words, they can be mistaken for editing tests and vandalism. —Frosty ☃ 08:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Concerning freedom of speech for non-sodomites and censorship in Wikipedia

Who said that sodomites are persecuted? Sodomites already govern the world and silence moral people. Soon pederasts will persecute straight people as did the gentiles of ancient times.

All that is written in the article about Yishai Schlissel is the brazen and shameless lie of conscienceless persons.

The TRUTH: Yishai Schlissel is an Israeli religious Orthodox Jew, a champion of faith and traditional morality. He stabbed sodomites and lesbians during the gay parades in Holy City Jerusalem in 2005, and again in 2015, just three weeks after having spent ten years in prison for his earlier attacks.

RichardNorfolk (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you claim free speech as a reason for your version, I can claim free speech for the current version. Funny how the world works? Seriously, don't add bias hate speech filth into articles. It ain't gonna fly with anyone. —Frosty ☃ 09:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

So you must not hate Hitler, Stalin, ISIL or anybody else.

The new kind of global U.S.A led totalitarianism - to gag opponents' mouthes. You,hypocrites, are you better than Putin's dictatorship or Communist China? It seems Wikpedia became just a miserable propaganda tool.

RichardNorfolk (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Indef blocked for talk page posts. --NeilN talk to me 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yishai Schlissel

Saw your note on RichardNorfolk's talkpage. I had to revert their vandalism as well (removing referenced info about his hometown, specific reasons for criminal conviction, inappropriate religious tone, etc.), see this. I'll be offline most of the day--appreciate it if you are able to watch this page.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw it through huggle where it scored quite high in the filter so I'm sure if it's tried again me or someone else will spot it :) —Frosty ☃ 10:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

Ceres

Frosty, my deletion was explained. Please, see "View history" and find there the following explanation; "This map is with preliminary names, now changed." I could say here that this map is now out of time. It was a map with preliminary names, which are now in contradiction with recently approved names - see in a previous section of the article "Ceres" the color map "Topography of Ceres ..." with the curent names, approved by the International Astronomical Union. In such situation the preliminary map of quads lost its importance and became an anachronic map, which should be deleted to avoid confusion with the new map pocessing the approved names. 108.167.40.165 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, it appears I have made a mistake. —Frosty ☃ 11:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I have since been re-reverted when making your change again. Please refer to Talk:Ceres for any discussion on it. —Frosty ☃ 03:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Papyrus

I made the change b/c Papyrus IS relatively thick. We're learning about Egypt in school, and we took a class field trip. And I've seen Papyrus up close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4701:65CB:93:4339:5FE5:4D42 (talk) 03:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Relative to paper it is thick, but it is still a quite thin material. —Frosty ☃ 03:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but if you go to the history of paper entry here on Wikipedia, you'll notice the information on papyrus, 3rd paragraph down, also uses 'thick' to describe papyrus. The change is not only meant to reflect relative size, but is also in the service of consistency. Wiki relies on community input. So to some degree there will and should be different perspectives and interpretations from the various posters. However, entries also should have supportive information, not information that's made to confuse, when there is no controversy with the topic at hand. I've noticed this to be a frequent problem with Wikipedia. Wiki is crowd-sourced; however, that is no way to run a MANAGED (as evidenced by someone like you) crowd-sourced site.

2nd point. Most people who search for the papyrus entry already have an idea of what papyrus is. Even those who haven't heard of it before will have some sense to understand that it isn't something as thick as a stone slab or block. As a descriptive modifier, the meaning of 'thick' is NOT constructed, in this context, vis-a-vis the aforementioned. To anyone, the word would be measured against a reasonable reference, which in this case would be the universal standard--paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4701:65CB:93:4339:5FE5:4D42 (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the article on papyrus thoroughly and found no reference to the thickness of the material, relative to paper or otherwise anywhere except the opening sentence where it says it is thin, because it isn't. I think if a change was to be made, you would need to refer it to the thickness of paper because calling it "thick" on it's own is quite misleading. Granted, paper is a "standard" as you put it, but paper and papyrus are only two of numerous writing surfaces, particularly in the times papyrus was being used parchment was quite common. I might suggest that you avoid using the comparison in the opening sentence, as that should just be about introducing the reader to what the material is. —Frosty ☃ 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your reponse. However, I wholeheartedly disagree. By the logic in your last sentence, then "thin" should be stricken from the introductory section as well (since it's just as much a qualifer as "thick"). Also, yes, parchment was used around that time, but it is thinner than papyrus and a finer writing medium. However, papyrus was more economical to produce while parchment is more costly and capital-intensive to produce. Whether paper or parchment is used as a standard, the point still holds.

Moreover, any explanation needed to give a sufficient understanding of the thicknesses of both papyrus and paper are wholly contained in the very first sentence by referencing the phrase "paper-like", which rather self-explanatory. Paper is paper, is paper, is paper (within the context of the article's scope of discussion). It's material thickness is self-evident. But, since that wasn't satisfactory enough in your estimation and because, as you say, there is no other reference to the thickness of papyrus in any other part of the article, all you really needed to do was tell me to add another ref concerning papyrus' material quality & thickness, which would in turn round out the information. Yet, you simply decided my edit was not in good-faith without considering another solution or an alternative. You found the description to be wanting, and that was why I eventually made it more specific by changing it to "thicker-than-paper", which is doubly sufficient on its own.

But all this is rather pointless. Since your reporting of vandalism I've been in contact with Dspradau. I made my case, and he/she agreed that I could change it. I changed it one last time, but you changed it back. Might I suggest you contact Dspradau if you'd like to confirm?

I will be changing it once more. Change it back if you like, but no one is backing you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4701:65CB:24FE:E963:9ECD:3B67 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

Thank you

For removing the vandalism from my userpage. (: --CyberWarfare (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. —Frosty ☃ 02:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Interpersonal Relationships

About https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_relationship. Why are you still looking for differences between species-dependent relationships? What is not constructive to you? What you can't understand? That found by our (human?) researchers principles of relationships are suitable for all and between them relationships? What is a difference between a dinosaur and human way of social organisation that is not environmental dependent? We (as a specie - humandkind) could stop talking about "interpersonal", whe sould use "interindividual" instead. Just take a breath of consciousness ;) --Partyz (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You used the term "interspecies relationships" which refers to instances of mutualism/symbiosis. Interpersonal is correct for use here. —Frosty ☃ 05:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Shortly: definition of "Individual relationship" DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS "Interpersonal relationship" (as human are not given any law to claim that individualism is only human-related). Reason: [prelude: OK, I could agree in one case - "interpersonal" in a very tight meaning of only inter-humans interactions (which lay lower than inter-individual in hierarchy of all relations) but interpersonal cannot interchange with individual (as "individual" is a representative of each kind). But again - as we know the etymology how and why there is a term "interpersonal" this leads to out-of-date definition of old-fashioned concept at all. We should scaffold whole RELATIONSHIPS category and tree from the beginning, as (by the logic), we cannot personalize each specie but we should individualize each representative and leave out the foundations of ego-centrism. Partyz (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If you can back up what you are saying with reliable sources then you can feel free to make changes, but I would suggest you consult with major contributors to the page and/or make notes on the article's talkpage before attempting major changes to such a big topic. I am still confused about your use of the term "interspecies relationship" in the revision I reverted, interspecies relationships are a concept totally unrelated to this matter. —Frosty ☃ 02:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

I move MundoFox information...no!!MundoMax.... MundoMax is new channel.. The best

MundoMax lo Maximo!! Erduace (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I know what I'm writing about MundoMax and RCN group..others topics I do not write because they do not ... Thank you Erduace (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
MundoMax New York is in time warner cable.... Erduace (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted your changes because you removed half the pages content without offering any replacement material/discussion on the matter. You seriously need to do this when removing substantial quantities of a page. —Frosty ☃ 07:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

frosty the no man

I can edit what I like. And I'll keep editing until there is nothing you can do about it. Get a life you wretched machine Mayor richie vallance (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Redid changes to David Burgess

I redid the changes to David Burgess. The article should actually be renamed to Sonia Burgess (her preferred name). As a new account I am not able to do that at this moment. Please see How to write about transgender, non-binary, and intersex people under Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Guidelines. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidan500 (talk • contribs)

You can take your request to Wikipedia:Requested moves. —Frosty ☃ 01:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Thanks

Dear Frosty, thank you SO MUCH for rewriting my article when Marcos13525 did something to it. Randomstuff207 w (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, an easy fix. Since you are new, I'll assume you were unaware of the undo button available in the page history? Makes reverting edits like that take only a few seconds. —Frosty ☃ 00:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy Bob Duggar

Hi, you reverted my change on the article on Jimmy Bob Duggar, and I just wanted to explain that I made the change simply to give a concise, comprehensive picture of the public profile of Duggar in the info. I would really appreciate it if you went back and put the statement that Duggar is a religious extremist back in, as I think it's informative and not controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.197.76 (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please read WP:LABEL for guideline regarding contentious labels.– Gilliam (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
This. Additionally I could not find any further reference in the article to religious extremism, the label doesn't apply in my opinion. —Frosty ☃ 00:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Heredia

Dude you reverted my changes, I created that article. I know why I'm making those changes. So, please respect my work, and quit acting like a idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futbopedia (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You were changing the name so it did not match the page title, you need to rename the page and then change the name in the body of the text. —Frosty ☃ 01:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Head louse

why did you delete my comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.81.12 (talk • contribs)

The addition was not really necessary, the average reader can decipher on their own that thick hair would make it harder to remove head lice, there was no real need to state it. Additionally you need to format your sentences correctly, any kind of additional sentences belong in the body of the text, not in among the page templates at the top. —Frosty ☃ 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Frosty/archive7&oldid=1125493367"