This is an archive of past discussions about User:Fr33kman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Some basic rules of this talk page (not all, just mine)
1) Do not insult me! I don't insult others, so don't insult me!
2) Assume good faith! I don't make edits maliciously, EVER. So please assume that I meant no harm by any edit 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 ALL new messages to me BELOW all the other messages and NOT at the top of the page (same for ALL user's talk pages)
5) If you have official power here at Wikipedia, state this. To not is dishonest.
6) If you have NO official power here at Wikipedia, then don't pretend that you do and make this clear in your message!
7) I'm not here to make friends, don't use my talk page for social chats with me. Email me instead!
Enjoy you time here, and make lots of edits! The most useful can sometimes be the smallest, a comma here, a period there.
Hi. I have removed yet again the section in the article Steven Seagal claiming that Seagal is or has been a deputy sheriff. Please do not re-add this material section unless you can offer reliable sources that would make the claim verifiable. You assert that evidence for this claim is available from more than one source, but the only evidence offered is the following:
Seagal's own self-report, which is not adequate without corroboration.
A comment responding to a blog post in which a poster says: a) he saw Seagal on MSNBC wearing a badge; b) he heard the Sheriff say Seagal trained his SWAT team (please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper): blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.) If a blog is not a reliable source, then what a comment-poster to a blog says he saw on TV is obviously not a reliable source. Even if what the poster claims could be corroborated from a reliable source (like the transcript of the MSNBC show in question), the sheriff asserting that Seagal helped train his SWAT team does not make Seagal a deputy; nor does Seagal wearing a uniform.
A CNN transcript of Anderson Cooper 360 in which Cooper says, "You know, you see a lot of surreal things here in New Orleans these days. One of the most surreal, Steven Seagal dressed up in a SWAT uniform. I don't know if you can see him, that's his back, I think, is turned to the camera. He's driving around, with the SWAT Team from Jefferson Parish. Not sure why. Just he is. One of the strange things you see here in New Orleans." Needless to say, this does not establish that Seagal is a deputy sheriff.
In fact, not only do none of these, taken singly or together, add up to a verifiable claim from a reliable source for Seagal being a deputy sheriff, none of them even attempt to make such a claim at all -- or even use the word "deputy".
In addition, you appear to be confused about where the onus lies: you ask, "Can you back up that your belief that he's not a cop...?" Please see Wikipedia:Sources#Burden of evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."
In other words, it is not up to an editor who doubts an unsourced or poorly-sourced claim to justify removing it: the onus lies with the editor who wishes to include material to offer a verifiable, reliable source. If you have such a source -- i.e. a reliable source that can be checked by other editors which states explicitly that Steven Seagal is or was a deputy sheriff -- feel free to restore this section. Until then, please leave it out.
You ask, "should we take what [Seagal], Anderson Cooper and Sherrif Lee have to say [as true]? Or are you more knowledgeable than those people?" You have offered no verifiable, reliable source in which either Cooper or Sheriff Lee claims Seagal is or was a deputy Sheriff, so this question is moot. Moreover, what I know or don't know is quite beside the point: the issue is solely what claims are attributable to reliable, verifiablepublished sources. Those that are not, like the claim that Seagal is a deputy, don't belong in an encyclopedia article.
You don't seem to be able to read very well, do you? I said that Steven made those comments on a TV programme in England called the Friday Night Project and transcripts are available for it. Try reading the whole argument before you go off on one. Users like you who get a little power at wikipedia make the place crap for the rest of us because all you do is go around and pick on what others say. Your talk page demonstrates that! Fr33kMan (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have requested Oversight on this issue and have reported you for making potentially libelous comments about Mr. Seagal. Fr33kMan (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In the unlikely event that Mr. Seagal's representatives respond to your request for information about his status as a law-enforcement officer, that information will still not be includible, as an email is not a reliable published source, does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiablity and conflicts with Wikipedia:No Original Research, policies I invite you to review. As I have already said, when you can produce a reliable published source that states explicitly that Steven Seagal is or was a deputy sheriff, by all means feel free to include that information in the article. Until then, please leave it out.
{{Fact}} tags belong in articles at points where citations are missing. Please do not add them to other editors' talk page comments.
You'll note that my tone during our dispute has been neutral and civil. I'd ask you to follow suit and moreover to confine your comments to the substance of our disagreement.
Finally, I imagine you have already discovered that frivolous reports to oversight-l are unwelcome. Additionally, your claim to have contacted a third party on a matter of purported libel might be understood as a legal threat. Please review WP:No Legal Threats. --Rrburke(talk)01:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not threatened you with legal action. My reporting this to Seagal's agent was done to provide them with a means of responding to your statements that he is an unreliable source of information about himself and to further ask for WRITTEN confirmation of his police officer status. I also have not personally attacked you and would proffer the explanation that we have different styles of English. Also, it is not for you to decide if oversight is appropriate, it is for them. Thank you and have a nice day!
PS: You still have not offered ANY evidence that Mr. Seagal is an unreliable source of information about himself-- have you got any? Fr33kMan (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
To my mind, the Sheriff's comments from the MSNBC transcript are sufficient to establish that Seagal was employed by the Jefferson Parish Sheriff to train their SWAT team and that he evidently rode with them, for how long is unclear, in the aftermath of Katrina. Whether he is still connected with them is open to question, as Sheriff Lee died last October. As I mentioned previously, Cooper's comments merely establish that he saw Seagal wearing a uniform; same goes for the picture.
The issue of Seagal's credibility is really ancillary, because an off-the-cuff remark made during a TV appearance would be unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia:Reliable Sources anyway, whether it was Steven Seagal or anybody else. That said, doubts about his accounts of his own biography date back at least fifteen years, beginning with a 1993 profile on Seagal in Spy Magazine. The article calls into question a great many of the claims Seagal has made about himself: that he battled the Yazuka in Japan (his then-wife says he may have "chased a few drunks away from the dojo" but never squared off with the Yazuka); that he was the first westerner to open an aikido dojo in Japan (she says the dojo was hers, and it came to her through her father); he left the U.S. to avoid the Vietnam draft (the timeline doesn't work); he was a Navy SEAL (his former business partner said he panicked in the water, unlikely behavior for a SEAL); he grew up in hard-knocks Brooklyn (he lived in Michigan until he was 5, and never lived in Brooklyn)... The list is practically endless. I note that in the MSNBC transcript he also claims to have spent a lot of time as a youngster in New Orleans. He also claimed in a recent interview that unnamed blues "legends" had early on recognized his prowess on the guitar during the extensive time he spent, again as a youngster, consorting with said "legends" in unspecified locations in the Mississippi Delta.
More than ample reason, then, to be cautious and seek independent corroboration for autobiographical claims before including them in an encyclopedia article.
Spy Magazine folded in 1998, and there is no online archive. American-buddha.com used to house an online copy of the article; perhaps they still do. The only place I'm aware of it being available online is on a blog. How complete or accurate the blog version is I couldn't say, but it corresponds as far as I can tell to what I remember. There's a Time Magazine article on the controversy that dates from that time, should it interest you. --Rrburke(talk)15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually going to leave it off the article for the moment as I'd like to get a better source than the MSNBC transcript. I also feel that the issue of whether or not he was/is a sworn officer has been established but I'd still like to have a second reliable source and more information as to his current status. Oversight (who were very happen to talk to me)and I have been in conversation and I agree that a second source probably would be better considering the amount of ire that Steven Seagal seems to be getting on Wikipedia. (Not you, others seem to have real, personal issue with Mr. Seagal.) I will say that people like him who seem to have done a lot in life do tend to have BS called on them and their activities. I think it's because some people only do one or at most two things (jobs etc.) in their own lives and can't understand people who do more. I've had similar issues myself as I've spent a lot of time in educating myself. Fortunately I can produce diploma's. Do keep in mind that Steven Seagal is rich, and money allows a person to do a lot more in life than poverty does.
Given that almost every article on this encyclopedia is inaccurate to some degree, completely wrong, out of date or else doesn't have a proper list of references and citations (some have no references whatsoever!), that the manner in which this was just yanked displayed a personal dislike for Seagal, and that has NO place on a valid encyclopedia. This event has coloured my belief in this project somewhat and I will certainly take from this less of a desire to use wikipedia in the future. I think I'll stick to a more reliable source of fact.
I still feel that both you and I have gone about this the wrong way and your calling into question a person's reputation without offering the evidence you just have, raised my ire. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, unless I have firm evidence to the contrary.
Although I still maintain that I have not personally attacked you and have not threatened you with legal action, I did let my emotions get the better of me and reoffer the appology I gave earlier. I do feel that you owe me an apology for the way you went about it also. I'm dropping the issue now as frankly I just don't care anymore.
No need to apologize: no harm, no foul as they say. I also could probably have been more tactful: celebrity bios tend to attract over-the-top fans who are sometimes difficult to reason with, and without intending to I probably presumed, wrongly, that you were one of those, when I should've made more of an effort to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Now that IS funny! I was assuming YOU were a rabid anti-Seagal fan! Ha ha ha ... No, I'm not even a fan really, just saw the Friday Night Project whilst editing wikipedia one day and he said he was a deputy so I thought I'd add it. Fr33kMan (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear this experience has made you less inclined to participate. I agree that this and many other articles are kind of a mess: instead of backing away, why not take it on yourself to improve some? You mention the lack of references: that's as good a place as any to start: it's kind of thankless work, but it helps rectify the kind of problems you accurately identified. Have a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria and then see if anything at Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories or Category:All articles lacking sources interests you. The sheer number of articles needing attention can be daunting, but they can only be fixed one at a time!
This is additional proof he is law enforcement.
Aside from the apparently already removed photo of Mr. Seagal in uniform with the Jefferson Parish, LA. S.W.A.T. team here are additional photos of Mr. Seagal at Sheriff Harry Lee's Funeral.
As you can clearly see he is wearing a badge with the mourning band across it == now, so as to avoid the argument that it's a prop badge I will say this, I myself have been in Law Enforcement and they do not just hand them out to any Tom, Dick, or Harry just because. In fact, it is illegal for anyone to impersonate an officer or member of a Law Enforcement Agency in public if they are not part of an agency in some form. Therefore, all the Deputy Sheriff's at the funeral would not have allowed Mr. Seagal to slide on that law even with him being a celebrity.
Mr. Seagal has also recently been asked to be part of the Memphis P.D..
Question is, how much proof is considered proof to allow a man his proper due?
Please tone down your comments. Several of your comments directed at User:Rrburke are bordering on incivility and personal attacks. While you are entitled to your opinion of the Steven Seagal article and while you are encouraged to contribute to the good of the encyclopedia, you are not allowed, per our explicit guidelines, to attack other editors. If you have any questions, please ask. If you cannot abide by our guidelines at Wikipedia, it is likely that you will eventually be blocked from editing from this account. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer00:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If they are 'bordering on attacks, then they, by definition, are not personal attacks. That user has repeatedly called into question the reputation of a known person by potentially libelous remarks. My comments reflected this! I am entitled to defend my edits. Please do not threaten me with being blocked. That is not correct either! I have asked for Oversight regarding this matter and wish to wait until this has been done before taking this matter up with others. Fr33kMan (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate your concerns, I don't believe you understand what oversight is intended for. On a separate note, I'm not threatening you with a block. All I'm saying is be civil. It is one of the Wikipedia five pillars. That's all. What exactly did Rrburke say that amounts to being "potentially libelous"? I just don't see it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I reported the matter to his representatives because Rrburke said that he is NOT a reliable source of information about himself (basically saying that he is a liar (no other explanation that I can see in that statement} and I'd like confirmation of this supposed fact and Rrburke has repeatedly not offered any and also to seek, once again, WRITTEN confirmation of his status as a current or former police office. It is not now and never was a legal threat! Also, if you or Rrburke have taken offense at any of my comments then you both have my apologies! Fr33kMan (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are some of my thoughts. It doesn't matter necessarily what you say, but how you say it. Have you read WP:AUTO? What Mr. Seagal says about himself, unless backed up through reliable sources, does not necessarily mean that it's true. I'll give you a rather obivous example: "Keeper76 recently won the 2008 NBA Dunk Contest." Does the fact that I stated this verify the claim? No, not at all. I can say whatever I want. Doesn't make it true. And if it were true, a reliable, secondary, and independent source would say so. Are there any independent sources that claim what you are trying to add to the Seagal article? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes I can, 1) A picture of Mr. Seagal in uniform exists here http://www.steven-seagal.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7866&highlight=swat , 2) Sheriff Henry Lee himself told Rita Cosby on MSNBC that Seagal trains his SWAT team and was given a commission [as a deputy] 15 years ago. Here's the transcript page: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9326665/ and here is the quote "COSBY: Yes, how do you two know each other? A great friendship here. LEE: We got to be friends—he actually was trains my SWAT team, pistol and hand-to-hand combat. And I gave him a commission 15 years ago. He was filming in Romania. And we get calls all the time, but he wanted to come down, so he finally made it today. So he‘s getting ready to ride with the New Orleans SWAT team for a little while, and then he‘s going to come back and just answer calls with us tonight." 3) Anderson Cooper on CNN stated ""You know, you see a lot of surreal things here in New Orleans these days. One of the most surreal, Steven Seagal dressed up in a SWAT uniform. I don't know if you can see him, that's his back, I think, is turned to the camera. He's driving around, with the SWAT Team from Jefferson Parish. Not sure why. Just he is. One of the strange things you see here in New Orleans." Which is located at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/13/acd.01.html
I noticed that there was no welcome tag here, which is always placed on top. Yes, you have been at WP at least as long as I have, but it's never late to be a newbie. Erase it if you wish; it is your talk page. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, never used the welcome tag myself, I'm here to read and edit arcticles, I'm personally unconcerned with other peoples page so have not bothers to learn those tags which are used on a talk page. Fr33kMan (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
EMT Capitalization
I responded to your comments at Talk:Emergency medical technician#Capitalization of article titles. The article title should still be in lowercase and I have explained why there. Also, if you move pages in the future, use the move tab. Copying and pasting loses the edit history, and "is a Very Bad Thing, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons" (according to Wikipedia). This then requires an administrator to fix the history with a history merge. --Scott Alter02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Patrolling?
I don't really understand the message you left on my talk page. Can you explain to me how I can mark it as patrolled? I'll do it, I just don't know how. Movingboxes (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I go from the "recent changes" list. Should I start going through the "new pages" list? I'm really not trying to be obtuse--I'm relatively new and I don't want to make things harder for other editors. Would it work if I went to the "new pages" list after I found problem pages on "recent changes"? Or should I just leave new pages alone so that patrollers can get them? I'm confusing myself here. :) Movingboxes (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I just found "new pages" and I figured out what you meant by marking them as patrolled. I can go back from the "recent changes" list to the "new page" list, no problem. Thanks for letting me know about that and I'm sorry for any frustration I caused for the patrollers! Movingboxes (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I do have auto-confirm (I just checked) and when I deal with new pages, I'll work on them through "New Pages" to avoid complicating another editor's task. Movingboxes (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course alot of my posts are to other users talk pages; they are to users who, like yourself, have received a speedy deletion notice for a page of there's that I've come across as I've been patrolling the Special:Newpages patrol. Learn how wikipedia works before thinking you've got one over on me, okay? Most users who post to other people's talk pages are leaving them tag notices :-) Cheers! fr33kman (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No. Halli, you can object to it it the correct Wikipedian manner by editing the page and inserting the {{hangon}} tag at the top of the page. You're a wikipedian too and have all the rights I do! fr33kman (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I didn't delete that article, I was actually starting the debate off in the talk page when it was pulled from under me by an admin. If you want to recreate it, then go for it, but it sound's like the admin agreed with me. In that case, get all your references together first and then write the article. Hope this helps :-) fr33kman (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
User Talk pages
I notice a lot of your posts are to user talk pages. Please remember that Wikipedia is not Myspace and to use your time constructively. Thank you. Halli B (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course alot of my posts are to other users talk pages; they are to users who, like yourself, have received a speedy deletion notice for a page of there's that I've come across as I've been patrolling the Special:Newpages patrol. Learn how wikipedia works before thinking you've got one over on me, okay? Most users who post to other people's talk pages are leaving them tag notices :-) Cheers! fr33kman (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
No. Halli, you can object to it it the correct Wikipedian manner by editing the page and inserting the {{hangon}} tag at the top of the page. You're a wikipedian too and have all the rights I do! fr33kman (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a {{nn}} tag you placed on William T. Dzurilla. This was clearly placed in error; I'm not sure how a lawyer could have more notability than Clerk at the Supreme Court, co-writing the constitution of Russia and currently serving as attorney for NASCAR. Please be careful when using Twinkle/Friendly and always read the articles you're tagging; you are as responsible for edits made with automated tools as for manual edits, and mis-taggings like this can be very disruptive as they have the potential to drive new contributors off the project.
This is not telling you to stop! Your contributions are welcome; just be sure you take care when using automated tools. – iridescent11:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my tag. The article did not provide enough references, IMO, to indicate a well written and referenced article about the person. As such I placed a {{NN}} tag on the article. It's then up to the original poster (or anyone else) to remove the tag by improving the article. No, I don't believe that being a clerk to the Justices of the Supreme Court of the USA is, in itself, enough reason to have a wikipedia article. I'd suggest a reread of Wikipedia:Notability. Thanks :-) fr33kman (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
On second read and doing a bit of google'ing I've reconsidered. I still think the article suffers from a lack of references though. A wikipedia reader shouldn't have to google a subject that we cover to get additional confirmation. Still, perhaps a references tag would be better?! Thanks, apologies fr33kman (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
On third read, I've still got to question the notability of this lawyer. If you do a google search (not most reliable way to look for references I know, but) for this guy you get 20 hits if you use '"William T. Dzurilla" laywer'. All of these hits are to places that provide profiles for lawyers and not just notable lawyers. There are no third party references for this person. So how are they notable enough to remain on wikipedia? Please I'm interested to know why I'm wrong on this one. fr33kman (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
You can rest assured, I'm more than familiar with WP:N and don't need to re-read it, but thanks for the suggestion... If you think it's non-notable, send it to AfD. The Search engine test, though, is not relevant for notability in Wikipedia terms. If the material can't be verified, then yes, it can be deleted via AfD as a hoax. "Unreferenced" has no relationship to notability, though – and as I say above, I really don't see how much more notable a lawyer can be than this.
Incidentally, I'm not sure quite what you did with your google test to get "only 20 hits, all profiles for lawyers" – I get15000+ ghits, including the fact that he's the author of Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law and Individual Responsibility for Torture Under International Law, that he's the editor of the Directory of Law Clerks of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court... In any event, even if this is the most non-notable guy on the planet, drive-by tagging an article (with an inappropriate "violates our standards for academics" tag) twenty-two minutes after creation, without even bothering to notify the creator or explain what you thought was wrong, is patently biting the newcomers. – iridescent16:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I did a google hit using specific terms. The search you did provides thousands of hits, many of which are not for this person. I'd suggest using quotes around the persons name as well as their main occupation eg: lawyer. Now, he may be notable but not based on the article when created. The article only referenced his own firm and the fact that he'd been a clerk to the USSC. I'm not sure if that is notable or not (I'd say that being a clerk to the Privy Council would not be notable here in the UK, on it's own.) Furthermore, readers (and patrollers) shouldn't have to do verification checks on a person, the info should be in the article first-off. To put the "academic" tag was, I feel, appropriate as I, as a wikipedia, merely asked IF the person is notable, then prove it. I did not do a CSD on it, could have, but didn't warrant it. I've been using Twinkle for adding tags and I thought it added comments to the users talk page automatically, does it not??? I disagree that I'm biting the newbies, just because you say it, doesn't make it true. I'd like another admin's opinion on that. Peace, take care :-) fr33kman (talk) 16:31, 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! Fr33kmantalkAPW13:31, 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! Fr33kmantalkAPW14:02, 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)
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!]) :-) Fr33kmantalkAPW15:18, 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)
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.
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. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo18:32, 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 Fr33kmantalkAPW18:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
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, Húsönd22:51, 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 Fr33kmantalkAPW22:56, 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, Húsönd01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. Unfortunately I was unable to process your request. The ACC tool is a powerful program, and at the present time your account is either too new for us to determine whether you would know how to properly use the tool or that you have not attained the necessary level of trust to be granted access. Please don't take this personally and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. —— RyanLupin • (talk)17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
