User talk:Fronticla

Welcome

Hello, Fronticla, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your editing behavior

Many editors have come to your talk page to commented / complain about your lightning edits to hundreds of articles in a questionable quest to remove certain phrases that you don't like. You continue to perform these edits, and you've removed dozens of comments and warnings from other editors from this talk page, I suppose in the mistaken belief that wiping it regularly will cover up your continued habit of making mass edits with no discussion. (It's all there in the edit history.)

I strongly suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines on consensus, and perhaps the three revert rule. Your stubbornly non-collaborative behavior pattern is not helpful, and it will eventually get you blocked if you don't cut it out. Zeng8r (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fronticla. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cult films

I noticed you've been removing mentions of cult followings in films. Most of the time, this is unsourced and should be removed. However, when it's sourced, you should not remove it. For some films, their cult following is what has made them notable. In other cases, their cult following is so strong and vocal that reliable sources have dedicated coverage to the phenomenon. This sourced information should not be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sourced content. If you continue doing this, you could end up blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WT:FILM, which is what you should have done it once you were reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Psychotronic Man. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sam Sailor 21:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar edit warring is noticed in Near Dark. Please take this opportunity to join the discussion at WT:FILM#Removal of sourced legacy information about cult followings initiated by NinjaRobotPirate. -Sam Sailor 23:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Near Dark. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't make any attempt at discussion and instead continue your WP:IDONTLIKEIT blanking spree and edit warring, I will raise this at WP:ANI and ask an uninvolved administrator to block you. This has gone on long enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Please stop removing sourced content from Near Dark. Just Googling for the film title and "cult" reveal it to be one of the films in the book 100 Cult Films. Another book says, "The Loveless and Near Dark were low- budget films that garnered 'cult' audiences." A book about the director says, "Four years later she gained a small cult following with her second feature film, Near Dark..." The film is also mentioned in The Cult Film Reader and Cult Cinema: An Introduction. Wikipedia is based on content from reliable sources, and that cannot be overridden with your opinion of what is known as a cult film. If you persist, you will be blocked. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M*A*S*H (TV series). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Begoon 23:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've been warned about this kind of drive-by edit-warring to try and force some subjective personal preference or other without discussion, by Zeng8r, NinjaRobotPirate and Sam Sailor. As they indicated, stop this behaviour or expect to have it discussed at a noticeboard. -- Begoon 23:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Fronticla, most of your edits improve articles by removing POV terms, euphemisms, etc. Some of your edits, however, go beyond what the manual of style recommends and remove perfectly acceptable words and phrases. This is what people are objecting to. If you would just listen to people and discuss your changes instead of edit warring, there would be a lot less frustration on both sides, I think. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It was remiss of me not to point out that there are many useful edits too. What is not acceptable is removal of information with a comment like "put airdate info later in lede" as though this was a visit from the self-appointed style police, with a command on how others should "fix" what really isn't broken - then edit-warring when that is reverted. Had you made an attempt to reword the content it may well have been an improvement, but you didn't, and refusal to discuss, accompanied by snotty comments like "read an FA" is really not helpful. The fact that you do this kind of thing in a series of "drive-by" edits is bound to antagonise people. Yes, your improvements, when they are such, are welcome - but you are not the "style police" and condescension coupled with refusal to discuss does not help anyone. Thanks. -- Begoon 00:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN

Please explain why you are accusing me of WP:OWN of the W. A. Hewitt article, when I have only made two edits to it, nor am I the primary editor of the article. Flibirigit (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do explain that baseless accusation. At the same time, please explain why you are still edit-warring instead of discussing when your changes to articles are challenged. Whether you are "right" or "wrong", edit-warring is disruptive, and the continued condescending little lectures and "instructions" in edit summaries about what you believe to be best practice are no substitute for discussion or excuse for edit-warring. A noticeboard discussion of your disruptive, drive-by style of participation seems increasingly like it might be the only way to get you to listen to the advice you are ignoring on this page. -- Begoon 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, how is this POV? 2604:2000:E016:A700:C01E:F7AC:4D95:EDFF (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on M*A*S*H (TV series). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Begoon 02:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Burzynski Clinic, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jon Kroll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Edits Reverted Discuss

You've made Bold Edits, they are reverted, now discuss. Article by article. Look forward to working with you. -- GreenC 01:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEA is a general guideline not a hard red line.
WP:PEA does not disallow these words only when they are used in a promotional manner throughout an article.
WP:LEAD sections summarize in a few words why something is important. If sources used throughout the article support the word, it can be appropriate to use. Some things really are iconic, famous and popular.
Words such as iconic, famous and popular can help establish context in the lead section. It is not always an improvement to remove them.

You can address these concerns within the context of the subject area of each article. -- GreenC 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly agree with this. We can discuss it at the article talk page if you disagree. WP:BRD is a good practice to adopt.11:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs)

User:Fronticla - you made a bunch of bold edits, and I reverted them with a notice above concerning WP:BRD. You chose to ignore my post and not respond and revert dozens of edits, engaging in a mass edit war (one example of many). I'm pinging User:NinjaRobotPirate to ask for their help on what should be done next, as I feel this is now more than edit dispute and disruptive behavior. -- GreenC 13:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Fronticla please respond here to show that understand and are listening to the concerns that have been raised, and will adjust your editing accordingly. A review of you recent edits shows that you don't seem to understand that adjectives are not necessarily WP:PEACOCK terms or WP:NPOV violations. Please don't make any further edits until you have engaged in a substantive discussion here. If this has to be raised at WP:ANI again, there is really strong possibility that you will be blocked from editing.- Mr X 🖋 13:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO given the mass edit-revert behavior, not only myself but many editors, there should be at least have a temporary block enabled to force discussion. I've never seen such wilful disregard of so many users on such a large scale and a complete lack of engagement. -- GreenC 14:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to rollback all of these PEA edits pending a second opinion that I've requested from admin Swarm.- Mr X 🖋 14:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. GreenC 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that you are right coupled with your failure to communicate properly has lead me to block this account indefinitely. This is a collaborative site and proper communication is required.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

Fronticla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am a good editor who has done nothing but improved articles. I do not deserve to be blocked indefinitely. I fixed many articles with significant POV issues. All within the WP guidelines. I explained this through my edit summaries. Just because a few stray editors do not understand WP policy does not mean I was wrong or that my edits should be blindly reverted. Please unblock me. Thanks. Fronticla (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised above. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yamla was too quick for me. To go into specifics, I will post what I almost posted in my decline of your request. Your talk page is littered with concerns about your editing. Perhaps you should consider dealing with these concerns. You have not addressed the reason for your block at all. That you do not recognize that your edits have been problematical raises CIR issues. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]