User talk:Fr33kman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Hi, seems to have blown over now. I have no problem with the approach on my talk page, just wanted to draw ES attention to it. I thought it strange that the person deleted my entry after I told them to be truthful and go to the authorities. I formed the opinion they were trying to engage me, and make contact outside of the wikipedia format, (which they were) and they did not like seeing what I wrote, so deleted it. just odd. No need for futher consideration. Thanks for your help (Legalist (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Glad it's all working out for you. Let me know if you need help ever. :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 02:07, 24 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)

Hello! Please, see Talk:Diabetes mellitus#Editor 2. Sincerely, 71.247.12.83 (talk) 08:45, 2 October 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)

Ryulong

I'm sorry to see that you are taking a wikibreak. Rest assured that I and many others have very serious concerns about Ryulong's administrative judgement and I hope at some point it will be possible to do something about it. Everyking (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Kenja

Thanks for mediating Kenja Communication. It look like it has quieted down now. By the way, I had a look through your talk history. I think most users would see that a threat to block for disruption for unintentional mistakes is inappropriate. So your "good name" is probably safe. RB972 11:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia v2 questions

Hi Fr33kman. Many thanks for your questions - I've answered them here. Please let me know if you have any further things I can add. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yankee Stadium

I have done numerous reversions today the conventional way, and was getting FED UP. I have stated numerous times, in both the edit summaries and the talk page, that this was NOT officially the last game, and WILL NOT BE until the Red Sox win 1 more game (which could happen tonight) or the Yankees lose 1 more. The announcers on the game made that point themselves. Just because we have a gazillion editors trying to declare last night to be officially the last game before it technically is, does not mean that the "crystal ball" wikipedia policy is out the window. So I will return to normal methods of reverting, and I'll have to keep at it until (hopefully) the Red Sox win tonight and put an end to this nonsense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I hear ya! People don't seem to understand odds, or WP:CRYSTAL. Oh well, perhaps a WP:RPP until after the Sox game would be better? Take care fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Red Sox LOSE, I might just do that. People have forgotten about the Red Sox historical tendency to choke and the Yankees to pull victory from the jaws of defeat, although that hasn't happened "lately". Joe Morgan said on Sunday, "the Yankees are going to be eliminated." That was a prediction, not a statement of fact. The Yankees themselves and their fans are resigned to it. That's fine. But wikipedia has to report facts, not predictions, as you know. So if the Bosox lose, I'll put in for it and see if it gets done or gets laughed out of the room. I'll probably ask for protection until the game becomes officially the last game. You know, the Cardinals are in 4th place, 14 1/2 games back of the Cubs,yet also still have a mathematical chance. Not for long, I'm sure, but as of yesterday's games they still did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How many time have we been here before? :-) LOL, Still not too bad for me, I'm a Mets fan. ;-) Still it was a good game for the last one, could have been much worse! Take care! fr33kman ^{t - c} 23:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking I might have to go through this again next weekend, except that the Mets will probably make the playoffs, and either way Sunday is the end of the season, so there's no ambiguity there. Barring a rainout, Sunday will be the last regular season game, and then the last playoff game will be obvious when it happens - as with the Cardinals in 2005. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

User:EddyJawed

Hey, thanks for the diff. He's on double secret probation, as it were; one more misstep and I ARV his ARS. Ironholds 22:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You're nicer than me I guess ;-) I'd have done it already. You should consider a {{uw-create4}} or similar, good luck :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well he has made a (few) constructive edits. Users who turn up and only vandalise get a shorter fuse from me than those who show the potential to contribute helpfully. Ironholds 22:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: NPW

You are very welcome and yes you may. :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ta, fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Geordie Netty

Just thought I'd tell you I have went to the tea room as you suggested. --Toasted874 (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good, those guys are super smart with word etymology and will probably be able to tell you exactly when and maybe even who started the term :-). You should know that the people who hang out there are the very top editors at Wiktionary (ie: top 10 editors) so they should be able to help you guys out. You should be aware that the edit count over there is much slower than at Wikipedia and so it may take a day or two to start getting replies. Good luck! :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 13:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Airways 3O

Hi Fr33kman. Thanks for the third opinion. I don't think we need a translation because the issue is if the word of a single customer can be presented in the article to represent more people other than herself. I can attest as a native Greek speaker that the Google translation is essentially correct. I provided an answer at the talk page of the article as well. Please let me know. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, my point was that the reference is useless without a translation and Google isn't reliable to be used as a reference; even if it turns out to be "essentially correct". I'll come take a look soon. I do agree that the comments of a single person are not reliable, it's their opinion. fr33kman ^{t - c} 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Fr33kman. That's exactly what I was trying to put forward all these days. That the comments of a single person cannot be generalised to include other persons. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote

Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Done already, cheers (yep I know it was a blanket messg :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't but I missed catogrised you.Geni 03:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NP, I'm not perfect either :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 03:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ja see mailing list

KTC

AndrewRT

CFP

Warofdreams

Mike Peel.

Geni 08:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

0845/0870 merge

Hi Fr33kman. Nice work with the merge. I think there is still some consolidation to do (sources that point to the same place for example) but I'll look at doing that for you. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was tired and trying to get to bed :-) Thanks for cleaning up for me! fr33kman -s- 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I think it's much better now - not so much unnecessary repetition. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in contributing more to medical related articles you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (signup here).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Your favorite disambiguation page

Hey, sorry to bug you but I just reverted an edit by Jwri on medical degree. He added the reiki, pharmacy, naprapath etc degrees back in. I will limit myself to 1RR but I anticipate that Jwri is intent on violating the guidlines we all agreed to. Any advice on how to proceed? Naturstud (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you get Naturstud to retract the last statement. I like how he/she slipped that post in on the talk page after Mediation was called. If I'm not allowed to continue to edit the talk page. Naturstud shouldnt be allowed either. This was posted after we were both asked to refrain. thanks. Jwri7474 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him to stop. Don't worry about what he's doing. MEDCOM will notice it and sort it out. Just let it go, and don't fall for the WP:BAIT. fr33kman -s- 02:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

k. thanks Jwri7474 (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, just so you know... Naturstud claims that none of my citations fit any of his/her written (and agreed) guidelines; however this not true. Most of the other forms of medicine I posted fit his "practice based criteria" which gave examples of their professions diagnosing, prescribing, performing procedures, etc. (example: naprapathic medicine and homeopathic medicine). The agreed upon guidelines also included the ability to post certificates, diplomas, and degrees from other countries that were deemed equivalent. These were all deleted without explanation. Or the explanation given by Naturstud is that they did not fit the guidelines, but I feel they did meet the practice based criteria at least. (I even found sources citing the degrees were deemed professionally equivalent in a few cases). Even the "doctor of chinese medicine" degree which was cited was also thrown out by Naturstud. Naturstud is simply cherry picking what degrees he/she deems acceptable regardless of citations. He/she has also created an impossible task of listing every slight change in degree title as a separate entity instead of accepting all Bachelor of Medicine/Surgery degrees (MBBS, MB, MBChB, BMBS, MBBChir, etc) Naturestud would have required I obtain a gov source for each one separately listing them as a medical degree instead of grouping them all under (bachelor of med/surg) This act also effectively blocks placing the degrees in the list and is unreasonable. I just hope these issues will be taken into consideration. Thanks again. Jwri7474 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB mediation (2)

Hello! Please, see Talk:Diabetes mellitus#Editor 2. It contains the matter of contention. Sincerely, 71.247.12.83 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

There has to date been a considerable period of quietude at diabetes mellitus. Where does the mediation stand in your view? We are in unsatisfactory metastable position just now. You are particularly important, of course, as being the volunteer neutral party. Enquiring minds are curious. ww (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion at Commonwealth realm

Fr33, despite any insinuations that PrinceOfCanada may be making about the status of the third opinion you're offering us at Talk:Commonwealth realm, I'd like to make it clear that I don't at all feel the process to be terminated. Since your last comments there, there been extensive (as usual) discussion, but, more to the point, I'd like you to loook at a new section I started at the talk page, which I hope makes the meat of the dispute a little more clear, and would like to discuss. See you there. --G2bambino (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarity: I didn't say anything about the discussion being over; I asked you to comment on the opinion fr33kman had rendered so far. We all know that the discussion is over only when you say it is, G2. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I will, of course, take a look at the new info. I'd like to ask you both, however, to focus on content, not conduct. It is obvious that you are both intelligent people, show that by your conduct to each other. fr33kman -s- 13:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Both intelligent and both stubborn, if might I add. ;) As sui generis, I think, perhaps, we don't have the right to be the ones to decide whether it is or isn't a personal union. As the sources seem inconclusive on both sides, I'd favour some kind of compromise, including most of the sources listed. It would be a different matter, however if we were to find some more sources...though this seems unlikely. --Cameron* 15:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

'We' are not deciding; two sources written in the last few years are very clear on the point: 'personal unions' no longer exist. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a compromise seems the way forwards. I think I've made it clear that there are valid arguments for both inclusion and exclusion and so we should include, with caveats. No, we can't define the term to 100% accuracy, therefore we should expalin what others say, and the problems with those explanations. btw: intelligence and stubbornness are long-time bed-fellows :-) fr33kman -s- 16:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, we seem to be getting somewhere! ;) Now you just need to attend to the rest of the commonwealth wars!! :) --Cameron* 16:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be up for that. :-) fr33kman -s- 16:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Explaining what others say is spot on. But, that's also where the problem behind this dispute lies: in the interpretation of what the others are saying. It is imperative that we not diverge off of that point right now. What we have to first do is weed out what sources are not pertinent; hence, I started to tackle each contentious one individually, beginning with Block/Lalor. --G2bambino (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Block/Lalor are old sources, but they do explain the thinking of that time. They must be qualified by more modern thinking. How does the paragraph look as it has been proposed by PoC? fr33kman -s- 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Block/Lalor is an old source; but its age doesn't cause me any concern. It's the misrepresentation of it that does (or did?). PoC's version without the Block/Lalor error is a definite improvement, but there are still some issues with his proposal. I addressed those at Talk:Commonwealth realm. --G2bambino (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

A friendly reminder from the Adopt-a-User project =)

Hey there Fr33kman! This is a friendly reminder to update your status at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters whenever it is appropriate in order to provide new users with the most up-to-date information on available adopters. Also please note that we will be removing adopters who have not edited in 60 days. If you become active again (and we hope you do!) please feel free to re-add yourself. Cheers!

• Notice delivery by xenobot 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah ...  Done fr33kman -s- 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Queen's Jewels

Hey, thanks for the compliment! I'm going to try and get it to GA or FA as I have don't have much experience in those two areas. All help is welcome! ;) --Cameron* 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion regarding "netty"

I'd just like to say thank you for giving us your time. If you have anymore suggestions on whether we need to add anything, I'd be happy to hear them. Thanks again! Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sinn Féin

Hi fr33kman, I post some stuff tomorrow, RL is very busy. Thanks. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No problems, there's no time limits. Some disputes go on for months prior to a resolution :-) fr33kman -s- 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi fr33kman, I've posted my comments, and I hope I have provided them in a clear and logical fasion. Thanks for your time and efforts in advance. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

Greetings....did ya forget about us over @ the Yamashita's gold article? The edit warring has started back up, as the IP Editor continues to inject his POV and failure to provide proper citations. Jim (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings...Thanks for taking the time to offer your third opinion. Unfortunately, the IP Editor refuses to take your advice, as well as other editors, about using secondary reliable sources. The simple fact of the matter is; there are no secondary reliable sources that would support their point of view. The issue(s) they are trying so desperately to insert into the article was vacated from that particular trial (Roxas v Marcos), and a new trial ordered. The IP Editor continually tries to retry the case. Maybe they are more involved than lead on to believe when the IP Editor said, “I also have spoken to one of the lawyers tangentially related to the case.”

I am sure this is not the first time someone has tried to use Wikipedia to retry a court case they lost. Jim (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. Wondering if you could lend your neutrality here, here, and here? [ roux ] [x] was prince of canada 18:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U comments invited

Forgot to include you when I sent out messages, sorry. There is an RfC/U related to G2bambino here. You are invited to comment. [ roux ] [x] 15:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for inviting me. I want to spend most of my time here in dispute resolution and so for my neutralities sake, I am unable to partake in user RFCs for people who have been involved in disputes I've mediated. I don't want disputees worrying that actions they take in my presence would be used against them in future proceedings. The exceptions I have for this are MEDCOM or ARBCOM requests. If either of you would like some informal advice over your respective conducts, I'd be more than happy to talk to either of you here or on your talk pages. fr33kman -s- 19:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. [ roux ] [x] 19:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Medical degree

Hey, any updates on our ability to progress with mediation? Thanks! Jwri7474 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for inviting me. I want to spend most of my time here in dispute resolution and so for my neutralities' sake, I am unable to partake in user RFCs for people who have been involved in disputes I've mediated. I don't want disputees worrying that actions they take in my presence would be used against them in future proceedings. The exceptions I have for this are MEDCOM or ARBCOM requests. If either of you would like some informal advice over your respective conducts, I'd be more than happy to talk to either of you here or on your talk pages. fr33kman -s- 19:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sinn Féin 3rd Opinion

Hello, just checking if you are still interested in providing a 3O for that article? It's been nearly a month since editors stated their viewpoints. Thanks in advance, Valenciano (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Fr33kman, I was also wondering if we were going to move forward on the article. Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK v2.0

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Samba TNG

dear fr33kman: regarding the samba tng page, i can only say, "do what thou wilst". a decision to destroy a historical record is enitrely within your power - and it would seem - mandate. lkcl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkcl (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

hi . i vist wiki many times and i feel there are lot of things are different from the truth which is on record .. hope u peopl will make these things stop hapening . (Raja irfan chib (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC))must check referances ... rajairfan83@GMAIL.COM

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4