User talk:FeelFreeToBe

Concerning "Articles for deletion/G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)"
 * In "Who's Who in America 1994" (Marquis Who's Who; 48th edition; December 1993), the following entry about G. Edward Griffin can be found:

I removed the text so that I don't get accused of any copyright violations. I can provide it by request. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I don't think the argument that "nobody has provided reliable sources for a long time, so the article has to be deleted, no matter what evidence is provided during the discussion" can be described as a revenge argument. The only evidence that was provided during the discussion (along with lots of people saying 'of course he is notable') was the Who's Who entry. The existence of this entry was referred to, but no use of it was made in the article: at the end of the day articles stand or fall on the references in them: no reliable sources, no notability. The article had been crying out for references for months: if all those desperate to keep it could not find and insert one reference in the final week of the AfD discussion (despite their assertions that such references existed a-plenty) then in the final analysis it deserves its fate. Why didn't you insert the citation into the article? I said it was a shame because he sounds like a real American eccentric: I'm always delighted to read articles about his ilk, and I'm surprised that no reliable magazine or newspaper hasn't run a feature on him, even a debunking one. But perhaps this is telling with regard to his notability. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  19:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/LakeOswego for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming number of brand new or seldom-used accounts that showed up to give policy-weak "keep" justifications on the AfD set off plenty of alarm bells. It was either suckpuppetry or meatpuppetry. As was later determined, there was plenty of off-site canvassing which likely resulted in mostly independent accounts. Since the deletion was cotnested on-Wiki, via continued recreation of the material, then at deletion review, it was useful and appropriate to determine if there was concerted socking going on in an attempt to disrupt or improperly sway these proceedings. Since the DRV failed, it was not looked into in detail; I'm sure you could contact for more information if you like--she ran the checkuser. I simply filed the report. &mdash; Scientizzle 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Turning User Name from Red to Blue
Hi. Saw your note on g. Edward Griffin talk page. FWIW, in order to change your user name from Red to Blue, you need to click on to your "user page" and add some descriptive content about yourself. Infoboxes are usually the quickest and most universal method. Hope that helps, J Readings (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) good advice FeelFreeToBe (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)