User talk:Fr33kman

Fr33kMantalk contribs stats

---

Hello!

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

---

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: Although I perform many admin-type functions, I am not an administrator.

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

---

September 2008

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Bear Magazine. Your deletion of another editor's comments because you considered them to be POV makes no sense; the NPOV requirement applies to articles, not their talk pages, and editing someone else's comments on a talk page is considered vandalism. Thanks. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments contained potentially libelous comments which was why I edited it. See WP:TALK#Others' comments Please note: I've been doing this for along time so don't feel I need the sandbox, but thanks for offering (yes, I know it is a template) :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you were probably reacting to, but the remarks you edited really don't rise (or sink) to the level of libel, in that they don't mention anyone in particular. It would be very difficult to classify as actionable defamation this sort of general grumbling about a generic group of disgruntled previous employees or whatever, and the comments you deleted are significant to the discussion. I have restored them. I know you don't need the sandbox, that's why I modified the template shortly after posting. Thanks for understanding. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it was grey. My thought was "... the previous publisher ..." lead to someone who could be identified. I have no problems with the restore however :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 22:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your message to me concerning a possible conflict of interest with me editing Bear Magazine is a good point to raise. I realize that my input to the article can certainly be viewed as biased with even an intent to advertise. For this reason I'm very glad that you and others take an interest in editing the article as well, to keep everybody who touches it in-check. I'm happy to add information that I think is relevant and keeps it up-to-date, though attempting to be as objective as possible, without making the basic facts suffer. Thank you for your involvement. Angina Floss (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya! I really do believe that you were only good intentioned. Think also about how it might make others perceive your employer. Anyway, that's history. If you're going to stick around you may want to consider broadening your interests into other subject areas and other articles and you'll soon find that your community trust level will rise very quickly. If you're really interested in getting into editing Wikipedia, you should probably first check the manual of style (which has sections for subject areas),then the key rules , and finally this category which will teach you all the tricks of wikitext. :-) Take care and keep editing! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

…for the barnstar! TN‑X-Man 11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Keep up the Good Work!! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 15:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• HI fr33kman, the discussion is reasonable enough, but has to be read along with the odd deleting which occurred with it. Randon xyz was deleting their comments and mine each time we turned a corner. (Legalist (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

• Can you provide me with diffs of the problems? Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 14:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

explain diffs (Legalist (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

A diff is a view of an article page that shows the old page on one side and the new page on the other (abridged to the edits changed or "diff"'d). When you go the history page, you should see the following at the left hand side of the line that represents the edits you are objecting to; (curr) (last) If you can paste the last link [right-click/Copy Link Location??] that shows the disputed edits into my talk page that would aid me. Thanks and sorry it took a while to get back to you. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Hi, question

Nope, wasn't me. But the user has been indefinitely blocked for quite obvious page-move vandalism. There really is no need for him to be able to edit his talk page, so to prevent abuse, it was protected by Lucasbfr. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's cool! I'm, frankly, trying to train myself up in "admin stuff" as I'm interested in doing an RFA next year some point and am just trying to understand this type of stuff. So, if a username is blocked then other editors can't access their talk page either or is it a special level of protection? Thanks! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It is just "create-protection", so that only administrators can create the page. It is a rare thing, but used to prevent abuse. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand now, thanks! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

DM medcab

In answer to your request:

The existing summary on your medbcab page is in error. content is not the issue, but article composition and layout is.

DM is complex mess. There are pathophysiological questions (some still outstanding), confusion of names between different conditions which share some symptoms, lots of folk wisdom about what DM is (or isn't), and what one should do (or shouldn't), and so on. It's a very important disease in terms of numbers of patients, damage done, and expense. Furthermore, given the relationship to lifestyle (not clearly understood yet), Type 2 especially is a disease with a really big future unless we figure out what's going on and going wrong. There is also lots of commercial snake oil surrounding all variants as there is currently no cure for any version (but lots of rumors about many in the works, or suppressed by someone or ...). Herbal remedies and supplements and all the rest. And so on. Thus, the problem at the DM article is multi-faceted and has been since I began editing there some years ago. Among the editors are some MDs whose contributions have been helpful in reducing the nonsense content claimed on the basis of studies published in one of the 3rd rate journals which abound, or on the basis of nothing. Thus far, there has been sufficient knowledgable editing to keep the snake oil content down to a minimum. A review of hte talk archives will show evidence of this.

The instant problem is over the style and coverage of the intro, not about content or its removal. There are about 50 some varieties of diabetes, and 3 (or four, depending on how you count) of diabetes mellitus. The major DM variety by far (90%+ in the developed world) is Type 2, the most complex and least understood variety. Second is Type 1 (formerly juvenile diabetes), at something like 10% of all cases. The rest are either temporary (gestational) or very rare. In this case one editor insists on including one of those rare varieties in the into section, rather than in the body of the article as suggested. Just why is not clear; there may be a conviction that this rare type is more important than all other rare types, but...

As a matter of style (and a service our Average Reader in the first part of the article he/she will encounter), all editors who have commented have taken the position that the intro should cover the DM highlights, not small glints. The small glints should be covered in the section of the article devoted to the variants. Thus the small glint that is MODY (the editor's favored DM variant) should not be in the intro. As an additional point, the editor in question seems to be of the opinion that the genetic connection of his particularly favored DM type is of special significance. As the genetic relations of any form of DM are less than well understood, it's not clear why this deserves special treatment and prominence.

As can be seen in the talk page, the reasons for this are explained in terms of WP policies (or suggestions treated as policies) not in terms of the article's subject matter. Other editors are wrong, have missed the plain facts (whatever they are) and have universally violated this or that or some other WP policy or suggestion. In fact, the only WP policy this editor does not impose on everyone is consensus. When you're outvoted by other responsible editors, you've been outvoted...

A protracted wrangle has resulted, and the joint conclusion of some of the editors involved was to ask for some sort of mediation. The MedCab seemed to be the most plausible, lowest arbitrariness, option.

Best wishes with your efforts here. ww (talk) 23:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (I am a PhD in bimolecular engineering and a current medical student [final year] so understand about DM [why I took case]). Thanks for the update and explaining things better. I'll review the case tonight and all the talk nots and article history and get back to you tomorrow. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 23:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Without your knowledge background, it wasn't possible to be optimally brief. Best wishes in your last year and with your intern assignment, and thereafter. ww (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Rocco

Hi. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Rocco as keep, when the AfD had little (by which I mean basically no) discussion on it. I'm highly uncomfortable with this close, as much of the closing statement feels to me more like a keep !vote, and would prefer to have it relisted instead. If you wouldn't mind doing this yourself, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, and happy editing. lifebaka++ 01:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, yeah sorry about that! I've reread the original nom and I know what happened. I read the comment the commenter had made on the 1st nom as being that he had improved the article and when I checked it, it looked okay (references that detailed him in New York Times) and I coupled that with the fact that there had been NO additional discussion despite being delsorted. So I closed it. Having relooked at it, it's obvious that I've made a mistake and closed when I shouldn't have. Thanks for pointing it out to me!! :-) If you'd like, would you take a look at the others I've done and let me know if they are okay? User:Fr33kman/NAClog Thanks! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

btw; Did you mean to undo all the edits, ie: adding {{subst:at}} ... or re-nom it on AfD (which is what I've done), is that okay? If not I can undo my edits (but it'll be on an old AfD page (Sept 9) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Either or. Since you've done the one, no point doin' the other. Thanks. lifebaka++ 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, sorry about the NAC being wrong in the first place. I think I'll use a new personal policy and only do NACs with over 5 people commenting on them. Probably safer, and needs less judgment on my part! Did you look at any of my logged NACs? Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

They're mostly pretty obvious stuff, so no worries there. If it's obvious no one will ever complain. Only thing that seems kinda' iffy to me is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pholde, but I'm relatively confident that one won't be complained about. Pretty much, as long as you're sensible about your closes and respond well when people question them (like above) you don't need to worry about it. Keep up the good work, man. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I really value feedback so thanks and I will keep up the good work. I am going to close only AfDs that have at least four-five comments! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-admins really shouldn't be closing AfD's created by administrators, to be perfectly honest, especially when it has so few opinions. Just remember to consider the deletion rationale as if it is a normal comment. Daniel (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to jump on your case about everything, but...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pholde was inaccurate. "lack of refs not best reason to delete" - untrue, any material that is contested can be removed, and if no refs are readily apparent and forthcoming the article must be deleted. Furthermore, to suggest that "keep seems consensus" is just patently ridiculous, as the only comment supporting keeping it was simply stating that it seems to have adequate notability, but offering no substantive point. I have overturned your close of this and closed it as redirect, using the right of administrators to summarily revert non-administrator closes in the deletion process guideline.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Haden (2nd nomination) cited "soon after last nomination" as a reason. However, as noted in that AfD, a previous discussion which closes as no consensus is no barrier, fatal or otherwise, to a future nomination in a fortnight's time. Furthermore, disregarding the "Strong Keep" from the IP address which flagrantly contradicts the well-supported document Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED, the only reason given for keeping the article is that the AfD was too soon since the last one, which we established above isn't a reason not to delete it. So, you only have arguments to delete standing. I won't overturn this one, because I would have probably relisted it for more opinions, but it shows that you need to be more careful with AfD's when you are both inexperience and haven't had your judgement vetted by the community.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Girls Learn (lifetime movie) got overturned by another administrator (I closed it out formally with a similar rationale to the other administrator), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy over Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence definitely violates bullet point #2 of the relevant guideline. Daniel (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation on Medical degree

Sorry that I was a bit busy earlier to comment. I've now had chance to read through the history, and I really don't think that I could offer any advice to you. As far as I can see you handled it superbly, keeping both parties on a short enough reign that they didn't run off on excessive rants, whilst giving them enough slack to actually have a constructive input. An excellent outcome, achieved with remarkably little fuss. Five stars!! Mayalld (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm a medical student and also provide negligence case mediation and arbitration under under ADR in the UK so have some experience but it's different (perhaps easier) to do over the internet. Thanks!! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

pahari sahib

hi, I WAS BROWSING FOR POK..I WAS SHOCKED TO SEE THAT EVEN THE EXPANDED FORM OF POK WAS REMOVED..I LOOKED AT HISTORY AND UNDERSTOOD THAT A PERSON NAMED PAHARI WAS TRYING TO DELETE THE POK TERM. I DO NOT KNOW WHY! I THOUGHT I COULD EDIT. BUT I AM UNABLE TO DO SO..SINCE YOU HAD COMMENTED ON TALK PAGE, I AM REQUESTING YOU TO BALANCE THE LEAD LINE FROM PREVIOUS VERSIONS. I HOPE YOU ACCEPT MY REQUEST117.193.129.137 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re. Wonder if you could advise me

Hah, welcome to hell! :-) You may, as I do, believe that this article should be deleted. The appropriate mechanism would be nominating it for deletion at WP:AFD. However, articles about high schools are almost always kept, contributing for the steady growth of cruft on this encyclopedia. In fact, many users dedicate themselves rescuing articles on high schools (sometimes, even middle schools and primary schools). Which means that we vandalfighters have to put up with reverting a continuous flux of vandalism and disruption to these articles. Which in turn is frustrating because 99.9% of them contain just information that should have its rightful place on the schools' websites, not on an encyclopedia where they are pretty useless. These days I usually don't bother reverting vandalism to them, as I've had enough of it. Regards, Húsönd 00:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, thanks for the advice. My thinking was the it named two real-life teachers there. Cheers :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for the rollback, use it wisely. Could you pinpoint where you have been declined account creator rights? Húsönd 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The the wikilink to my archive is here. I was attempting to gain access to the Internal Account Creation Interface but it was declined by RyanLupin (talk · contribs) and I'm not asking for it to be overturned (although if you wish to you may). Cheers Fr33kman^{talk APW} 03:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. I was expecting those to be the decline reasons, and I agree with them. I suggest that you wait a couple of months before asking again. If you keep doing a good job and keep gaining experience you will probably be granted the account creator rights next time. Regards, Húsönd 04:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Escaping characters used by Wiki templates

Now's time to take your offer:-) Here is the situation: I'm trying to make a quotation that includes an equation. But the equal sign '=' is a special character in templates. This makes the body of the quotation disappear, like this:

Using only the maximum excursion of the seismogram as measured on a single type of instrument, the Wood-Anderson seismograph, he defined the local magnitude of an earthquake as

M_L = log₁₀A - log₁₀A₀(delta),

where the empirical function A₀ depends only on the epicentral distance of the station, delta. The zero point was arbitrarily set by Richter to avoid negative magnitudes in the course of routine work. Use of common logarithms means that two earthquakes located at the same distance from a station and having peak amplitudes differing by a factor of 10 will differ by 1 magnitude unit. In practice, readings from all observing stations are averaged after adjustment with station-specific corrections to obtain the ML value.

— William L. Ellsworth, The San Andreas Fault System, California (USGS Professional Paper 1515), 1991-1992

I vaguely remember there was a discussion about how to escape Wiki special characters but can't find it in a hurry. Can you help? Thanks. Sillyvalley (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How about that? You should go here and delve. It's lot's of fun when you do intricate wikitext. :-) Happy editing! Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Sillyvalley (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You add a <nowiki>=</nowiki> to it instead. Equal doesn't have an escape that I'm aware of but check here also as it has the mother of all pages for editors. The special characters page is here. It's lot's of fun when you do intricate wikitext. You should start browsing administrators home pages for cool things to do with wikitext also. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 02:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

IP 203.35.175.217

Thanks for that catch - I lost my connection 5 hours ago while doing that one and just got back on-line (I try to backtrack to catch the obvious ones)! :( SkierRMH (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No probs, it's why there's a bunch of us! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 05:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD closures

It has come to my attention that you have been improperly closing several AFDs as a non-administrator. Several of these seem to be for articles which should clearly be deleted, or there is no clear consensus such that a non-administrator is to be given the deciding keep/delete decision.

If you close another AFD improperly, your account will be blocked for disrupting the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)