User talk:Fr33kman

Fr33kMantalk contribs stats

---

NOTICE!

If I've {{tag}}'ed your page or put it up for deletion, please don't take offense: click here instead! :-)
(please don't talk to me here on my main talk page about tags)

---

Some basic rules of my talk page

1. Do not insult me! I don't insult others, so don't insult me!
2. Please assume good faith! I don't ever make edits maliciously, so please assume that I meant no harm by any edit I made that you take exception to.
3. I'm a nice guy, so talk to me rather than lecture me. (I don't respond to lectures, I'm too old!)
4. Post new messages to below all the other messages and not at the top of the page.
5. I'm not here to make blog-friends, don't use my talk page for social chats with me. Email me instead.
6. If you are abusive to anyone on my talk page I will remove your edits and you will be reported.
7. Illegal posts will be reported to the authorities!
8. Please don't vandalize my talkpage, you will be reported.

NOTE: I have no official power here at Wikipedia

Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Non admin closure

I think its way too controversial for a non admin to close it. The issue is a sensitive one, and your authority (as a non admin) to close it would be questioned when there are other admins around. Also, some of the suggested pathways include deletion and protection, and its best if one person handles it. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree it's controversial, that's why it needs closing by an uninvolved person. A neutral admin should do it then. This article obviously needs arbitration or other review as it seems some users and admins have gone outside of acceptable behaviour. Good luck! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 13:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Misformatted signature

Your signature causes bad formatting, at least in IE7. The line with the signature overlaps with the line below, and there is a blank space corresponding to 1-2 blank lines above the signature line. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I've changed it slightly and it looks fine now in IE. I don't ever use IE, I use Mozilla (which is a standards based open source browser), as such I don't worry about formatting for it [IE]. Perhaps Microsoft is using a non-standard code implementation. It looks fine in Netscape, Firefox and Opera. Thanks! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 14:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for changing it. A lot of users have IE and as you say, it looks fine now. Regarding your basic rule 5, I'm an admin but rarely say so in discussions. I wouldn't call it dishonest. My user page says it clearly. Many users would probably consider it inappropriate intimidation if admins flaunted their bit all the time. I suggest you tone down point 5. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Want to keep the gist, so have reworded #5, comment? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 14:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks better and I can live with it, but I would prefer you just stated your personal preference for knowing the status of posters. I guess many non-admins do specifically not want admins to declare they are admins when they haven't been asked. And I think the large majority of both admins and non-admins would disagree that it's dishonest to not say it. It's often said that adminship is no big deal. Have you had a bad experience with a user you didn't know was admin? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not here, other wiki's (non WF). I just like to know the status of the person I'm chatting to. I guess I only need to have it if it's relevant to the discussion. I've had people tell me not to do something (which I've ignored) only to find out they are admins and then get "Ratty". As you can tell, if you delve, I do lots of admin type stuff and am not even slightly afraid of doing so. I just feel that if people enter a discussion as a user fine, if they enter as an admin, state so [when the hat changes, the admin should say so]. I agree that admin-ship is no big deal (I've met admins who disagree) and am not impressed by the admin status of a user (I'm not even impressed by Jimbo's status, but that's another debate for another year). Thanks for the advice on 5, I'll think about a better way to say it, but do feel the need to say something on the issue. (No reply needed to this --> Why do non-IE browser users always have to accommodate IE, IE sites don't accommodate us! [sigh!]) :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinions. Maybe you could formulate it in a way that more clearly identifies it as a personal opinion. (I know you said No reply needed, but Usage share of web browsers is the way it is whether you like it or not. If a site wants users to see their content then they better make sure it works well in IE. Wikipedia usually tries to accommodate everybody.) PrimeHunter (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Take care! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 17:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin closure

Thank-you for your interest and enthusiasm with respect to deletion discussion closures. If you have not already done so, please read WP:NAC.

Your closing summary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeHeadset.org indicates that the closing was handled as a vote. On a unanimous discussion such as this one, this is not likely to create controversy, but it does cause some concern that you are closing discussions without possibly fully understanding the proper method of determining consensus in deletion discussions.

The above essay gives some good tips and links to relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry, per your rule #5, I am an admin. BTW, there are user scripts that can highlight usernames based on userrights, you may look into adding one to your monobook. I use one, myself. I can give you more details if you like. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! The closure of FreeHeadset.org was definitely not handled as a vote, it seemed to be a unanimous yes, essentially. I have read WP:NAC, WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:Deletion policy, WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, WP:NPOV, and User:GRBerry/DRVGuide before I started on this mission. I'll excuse myself by saying it was one of my first and I could have worded it better :-) Your are welcome to comment on others I have done User:Fr33kman/NAClog PS: Thanks for advising me! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 18:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes please! I'd love the script. I just hate not knowing who I'm talking to. I've no fear of admins and truly believe that WP:NBD, I guess I'm ex-army and used to knowing the ranks of the people I'm talking to :-) LOL Fr33kman^{talk APW} 18:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd value your opinion on my reasoning and techniques in NAC if you'd like to? User:Fr33kman/NAClog Fr33kman^{talk APW} 18:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

adminrights.js code

To automatically highlight admin+ usernames, edit User:Fr33kman/monobook.js and add the following:

importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js'); //User:Ais523/adminrights.js

Then follow the instructions to Wikipedia:Bypass your cache.
Then wikilinks to user pages and talk pages of admin+ will be highlighted by a cyan background (such as those in their signatures). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I wish I were smart enough to do this kind of coding. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Ais523 is mad smart. His edit counter totally rocks, too. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Medical degree RPP

Hello Fr33kman and thank you for contacting me. If you'd like to know more about page protection, check WP:PPOL. :-) Good to know you and the other party are reaching an agreement on the disputed content. Once you have, just tell me and I shall lift the protection (or you may instead request unprotection at WP:RFPP with a link to the section on the talk page where an agreement is evident). If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. Regards, Húsönd 22:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding! Just to point out, I'm not actually in the dispute. I'm providing informal mediation via the WP:3 process. The parties involved are very close to an agreement, we just need to reach a consensus on a point of reliable sources. Thanks for the information and I'll let you know when we need the page back. Cheers Fr33kman^{talk APW} 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I've unprotected the article and I commend the involved users for embracing talks in order to reach a compromise. However, I cannot grant specific editing rights to particular users; by unprotecting all users will be able to edit the article. Regards, Húsönd 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought that would be the case and would have been surprised, and a little offended as an editor, if it were not. :-) Thanks, Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)