User talk:Adrian~enwiki/intersections in realtime (and other dangers)

{| width=100% cellpadding=12pt
 * colspan=3 style="border: 5px solid #FF7000; background-color: #99FF00; line-height:1.5" |

See Also: User talk:Adrian/Messages from Earth (and other archived stuff) (archive 1)

I post replies here, unless I don't. User:Adrian welcomes reader replies, but reserves the right to edit submissions for libel and length.

{| style="text-align:left; border:2px solid #FF7000; background-color:#FF9933"
 * - padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;"

'ello poppet!
My talk page looked empty post-archival. So I'm talking to myself a bit. Hi!

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: 'ello
I have now set a valid e-mail address on my account. Thank You for the reminder! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  15:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixing your talk page
The following code in your talk page is broken and should be fixed:

I post replies here, unless I don't. User:Adrian welcomes reader replies, but reserves the right to edit submissions for libel and length.

The problem is that you're using the class "usermessage", which many user interface modifications rely on to change the text of the "You have new messages" display. To me, rather than reading your spiel on libel and length, it just displays to me as "You have User:Adrian ". -- 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The code is fine. Your script is broken >:o
 * That's my story, and I'm sticking to it until I've had coffee :/
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my request for adminship. I'm delighted that the RfA succeeded with a final consensus of 52/17/7, and receiving comments including having 'excellent potential to become a great moderator', and I am now an administrator. It did however only just pass, and I shall do my very best to rectify any of my errors, including the general belief that I should do more article work. If you have any concerns, or if you ever feel that I may be able to help you, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Again, thank you! Ian13/talk 19:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my RfA
Thank you for your support of my successful request for adminship. I am honoured that the nomination was supported unanimously and that the community expressed confidence that I would use the tools wisely. If you have any concerns please let me know on my talk page. Regards A Y  Arktos 02:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the role of adminship.
Hello! I am glad you raised this question on my e-mail. But first, I have to let you know that I have been editing on Wikipedia for only about 2 months. My first edit was on 6 January 2006. Based on the results of other users on their request for adminship, 2 months of experience is just not enough to pass into a successful nomination (although there are a few exceptional cases).

I am definitely interested in becoming an admin in the future. But I feel I need a minimum of 3 months of edit experience to be successful in my nomination. In fact, since I started editing on Wikipedia, I was thinking of self-nominating myself around April 2006. If you were to nominate me now and I accept the nomination, it will likely end up to be a failure. However, there is also a possibility of a failure if I were to apply for adminship around next month. But at least, I would have fulfilled the basic requirements of having at least 3 months of experience in editing Wikipedia and I would be able to improve my edits based on the comments of users opposing my nomination. It would be wise to wait for at least one more month before embarking on the next step of becoming an administrator.

I also wish to thank you for giving me encouragement on the future role I might play in editing Wikipedia.

Lastly, I wish to add that I voted Undelete on the article Sean Ripple. I hope that this topic will be on Wikipedia in the near future. Best of luck for the future! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I absolutely agree, the timing you mention is the timing I had in mind. I didn't plan to haul you before WP:RFA the very next day :)


 * I'll raise this with you again in April. I have every confidence that by then, your contributions to the project will be beyond questioning for even the most skeptical Wikipedians.


 * Cheers! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A cookie for your support!
I hearby present you with a wikicookie! For your keep vote in Unusual Sex Acts vfd! Oarias 20:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm just here for the free wikicookies :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

User page award
Congratulations, Adrian! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:


 * Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
 * Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
 * Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
 * General niceness: at the judges' discretion

But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!

More information can be found on this page.  haz  (user talk) e 21:39, 5 March 2006

Rocket Scientist
I could pull it out. It is true, and I just sent off a 60-odd page proposal to NASA (for The NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services project). Mostly I don't; sometimes I do it as a joke, sometimes it's appropriate, for space-related stuff, but most of the rest of the time you come across as an intellectual prick if you do that sort of thing. It does help end arguments about space subjects sometimes, though. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 01:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
P.S. If you are interested in The Beatles, User:Lar has asked me to tag on a little note advertising the creation of a new Beatles WikiProject that we are currently setting up. Please sign up and help.

Pottsville radio
I think G4 is a bit dodgy when the previous deletions were speedy. These articles are usually the work of newbies who won't know about [{WP:DRV]]. As far as I know this was not (yet) deleted by any process, and the speedy cat under which it was deleted is actually false. The article is original research, unencyclopaedic and cruft, but it is not patent nonsense, which was one grounds for speedy deletion, and it does provide sufficient context which was the other. That said, it doesn't stand a snowball's chance so I'm not going to argue :-) Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This article wasn't as clearcut as some. WP:AFD isn't a perfect process -- I sometimes see deletion votes pile onto good articles because readers don't have the time to research them, and articles that absolutely won't be kept have days of attention lavished on them. When there's a plausible reason to speedy -- either speedy keep or speedy delete -- I like to think it helps the remaining articles get a closer look.


 * Of course, I guess I should also hit people over the head to use WP:PROD more :)


 * What was the username of the author of Pottsville radio? I should at least leave them a note on their talk page, and see if there are other ways they'd like to contribute. I'd hate to be the jerk that leaves a well-meaning contributor disenchanted.


 * Thanks, — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw what was happening, I'm just a it uneasy about G4 in the specific context of prevviously speedied material. It was ; I diagnose youth :-) Just zis Guy you know? 16:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

User page
That's a nice user page you've got there! How've you managed to change the colour of the TOC on the talk page? smurray  inch   e  ster  (User), (Talk) 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! smurray  inch   e  ster  (User), (Talk) 08:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Exburb
I'm getting tired of this guy, maybe you can help explain Wikipedia policy and "logic" to him better than I can, especially since you agreed with him (at least at first.) He could be a useful editor. We seem to agree most of the time on AfDs, perhaps you could revisit this one. Thanks! Regards, Grandmasterka 22:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * *instant headache* Is it too early to start drinking? I'd considered telling him that my keep vote was not an invitation to write a couple thousand words on the topic, but bit my tongue in the interest of WP:CIV :x


 * I try to defer to plausible expertise on WP:AFD and matters of content, but it looks increasingly like this editor has a dog in this particular fight. I'll leave them a note, but I suspect my skills of diplomacy may be outmatched on this one.


 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

ERROR..
I've had a keypad error. That is why the sig did'nt take. Martial Law 04:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC) :)


 * If it was not for the Admins. Wikipedia would become a online mess due to the rampant vandalisim. Martial Law 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC) :)


 * A lot of users participate in the fight against vandalism, not just administrators. It's important to bear in mind that the function of administrators is to help, not to police. When users are blocked, the goal should be to give them time to cool off, or consider their actions. Unrepentant vandals are the exception, not the rule. You might be better served by considering the role to be more closely akin to that of a tour guide than that of a cop -- holding hands, showing people around, keeping the path clear, helping the lost find their way, and gently nudging the public away from activities best kept roped-off :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was raised in a military family who also had personnel in the Alphabet Agencies and in law enforcement, thus is why I had assumed that the Admins are like police officers. Martial Law 21:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC) :)

thanks!
For removing the personal attack on Articles for deletion/Spanjo. Had I known anyone felt strongly enough about the spanjo to respond angrily, I might have picked my own words differently :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Always glad to help out =). People sure make the biggest deals out of the strangest things in AfD&#160;—  The KMan  talk  05:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Luntz
Hello Adrian. Can you explain what you mean by a point-making nomination. I have nominated a variety of nn stuff in the past User:Blnguyen/AfD, and this article was the first time I have edited anything related to that done by the author. I simply clicked on the user in the history list and saw the stuff on his userpage. I would like feedback on how I can improve my standard of contribution here at WP. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC).


 * Lots and lots of articles end up at WP:AFD. Many of them are nominated with rationales like "nn bio blah". Your extensively researched nomination came across as the work product of someone with a personal interest in the topic.


 * To wit, the words "he appears to clearly be a minor radical left-wing political hack who has come to wikipedia to put up articles about his non-notable fellow left-wing hacks and glorify the activities of his organization (MUSU)" aren't really NPOV. Maybe I misread them somehow, but they gave me serious reason for pause in actioning your nomination.


 * I'd have the same reservations if the political spectrum reversed; It's been less than a week since an AfD voter called me a "right wing creep", so this isn't my socialist tendencies speaking here :)


 * If I did, in fact, misread your intentions -- and at first blush, it didn't seem that way, or I woulda voted to delete -- please let me know. I'm open to being corrected. This is a learning experience for everyone involved.


 * FWIW, I stopped short of citing WP:POINT, since WP:POINT implies disruption, and your nomination obviously wasn't disruptive. If you want my personal advice -- try to keep a neutral tone when judging the value of political articles. They're trouble :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, I'm sorry. I was somewhat taken aback when I looked at DarrenRay's history when I first looked at the article. In hindsight, I should have probably taken a breath, and not even bothered to state what I see as a conflict of interest, and left that to everyone else to read.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 08:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Steveo2's RFA
Thank you for voting to support me in my RfA. Its not looking good for me right now, though. JaredW! 12:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ~/~ You can get it if you really want ~/~
 * ~/~ you can get it if you really want ~/~
 * ~/~ but you must try, try and try, try and try ... ~/~
 * aw frack, :x
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

California dreamin'
You probably watch your page, but just in case, I wanted to let you know there's a disagreement over whether you are from California. Cheers. --F a ng Aili 22:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not from California? The federal court with jurisdiction over me begs to differ :)
 * *also from MA*
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Spiked
Your comment on the logline with it's "Different". if that is a little West Coast irony please check Gerald Bull entry and then see if his science has been developed much since his death or taken up in fiction. A more cost effective launcher for unmanned spacecraft might take away a few bucks away from some California areospace concerns but consider the science for a moment. Re. the notion of "vanity publishing": Beck may not be Balzac, who you'll remember owned his own printing press, but his readers seem to endorse if their comments at various on-line booksellers are to be believed. American Library Association interview appears to me more impartial source than much consumer media publicity generated by commercial interest groups. National Union of Journalists' award supports credentials for a book with journalist protagonists. As for the editor's comment "Malundi also keeps removing tags requesting cleanup", sorry, but that I believe that was only once, and only after I supplied the request for a citation. By all means clean up, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Please have another look and see if the evidence suggests support for nomination. Malundi 8 March 2006


 * Thank you for your feedback. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Here's a userbox for you. -- Cyde Weys 04:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You ironic thing, you. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
I'm leaving this macrophage, a particularly hungry white blood cell on your talk page, I just finished a rewrite of its article and realized they're not so different from administrators, as they keep their surroundings clean, doing away with anything that's not supposed to be there... Anyway, with that short lecture on cell biology done with, I'd like to thank you for your vote on my RfA, which passed with (49/2/0), I'll do my best to not let you down, and if you see me heading towards a common newbie mistake, please nudge me in the right direction :) -- O bli (Talk) ? 20:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Impastato's
G'day Adrian, and thanks for your message. My answer's twofold: firstly, I don't have a clue why Impastato's redirects to McDonald's, and no real reason for preferring that article as a redirect (sorry). However, a while back I came across an anon making nonsense posts on talkpages, tagging stubs and redirects as fac candidates, undoing merge-based redirects related to Maccas and the McDonald's massacre, and just generally being a damn nuisance. See for instance,, which was from a different IP but follows the same pattern (including the spurious accusation of "vandalism"). I believe the various IPs I've seen doing this stuff have been the same person, so when I saw him tackling yet another Maccas-related redirect, with edit summary "(Licciardi's Mound)" (one of his nonsense posts reads "President's Mound"), well ... you can imagine why I reverted, I hope. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

staying in bed?
You ok? Maybe that girl poisoned the taco salad....Or maybe just too many tests. Hope your feeling well. The Ungovernable Force 06:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I blamed the salad earlier when someone asked why I stayed home today, actually :x
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * oh, that sucks. Get better, and never trust school food. The Ungovernable Force 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably just didn't sit well with my capitalist pig-dog intestines ;)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of pig dogs, I have been meaning to ask you about the ordained minister comment on your userpage. So, what group are you ordained with (is it one of those over the internet things)? Just kidding about the pig dog part (kind of). The Ungovernable Force 08:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He's a deacon with LDS. --Cyde Weys 06:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my page
Thank you for taking the time to protect my face from an anon vandal. I really appreciate your assistance. Regards Netkinetic 23:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Never a problem :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Winfield Reformed Church
I see you closed the AfD but you forgot to remove the tag from teh article. Done. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Did I? I'm getting forgetful in my old age. Thanks for picking up after me!
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
How do I get an anon who keeps vadalising an article blocked? Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 20:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Which anon and which article? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb and User:63.226.214.125. His her contributions are all negative, including one case of outright vandalism . I left a note on their talk page to discuss changes on the talkpage and they reverted the page again without doing so. The Ungovernable Force 20:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Appropriate action taken. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 23:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Hi. Maybe this is of interest for you?

Requests for comment/Jersey Devil

peace. --Striver 23:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In need of assistance (again)
Ok, I think that the registered user who defended the anon on the This Bike Is A Pipe Bomb article is the anon (which would mean they have violated 3RR) because User:Tombride hadn't made any edits since July 2005 before today, so I am pretty sure the two users are one in the same (too big of a coincidence). I requested a usercheck, but nothing has happened yet. I have provided two sources that say they are folk-punk, whereas Tombride only provided one (and really it didn't count for anything, see my comments on the talk page). Anyways, Tombride has now started engaging in personal attacks on his/her talk page and editing my own comments (blanking my original warning, taking out part of my comment , and making a personal attack in the form of an edited comment ). I went to the Admin Noticeboard and Incidents board, but I didn't have the necessary prerequisites to post something. I need someone else to try to resolve the dispute, and that is where you (hopefully) come in. What can I do? Thanks. The Ungovernable Force 07:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for some positivity
Regarding my article on Fries BBQ. Looks like I'm in over my head. I'm not sure I see the logic of what goes on around here, but as the old saying goes, "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong." -JG

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for supporting my RFA. I appreciated the show of support and all the kind words. If there's ever anything I can do to help with my new administrator status, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Myles Long 14:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You betcha :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jersey Devil, Striver, and AfDs
How exactly can this problem be addressed in the best way? Putting aside Striver's partisans who disingenuously recommend things like "keep nothing wrong with this article" on articles that quite obviously are severely flawed (if not obviously in violation of WP policies), I think there is a consensus that Striver's articles are: badly written, lack citations, do not provide context, and do not assert the notability of their subject (beyond peacock terms like "famous"). And, it is a fact that he adds a large number of new articles. It has been claimed that he revisits the articles he creates and expands them up to par, but from what I have seen the majority of them remain less than stubs. What can be done to at least get Striver to slow down and improve the articles he has created, and to create better new articles (at least proper stubs) in the future?

How can AfDs on Striver's articles be better handled? I can't imagine (and I would not advocate) that all of Striver's articles are going to be proposed for deletion. However, there are nonetheless a great many which can reasonably be proposed for deletion, far more than have been so far, I fear. If legitimate policy reasons can be identified for proposing them, why should one refrain from doing so? Esquizombi 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm at a public terminal with a time cap, so please forgive me for being terse. My assertion is not that Striver's articles are perfect, or that they should be kept. I proffer that action taken on them en masse disrupts the day-to-day operations of the WP:AFD process. AfD is not a substitute for a cleanup tag, and nominating articles for deletion in great clusters creates disruption. Surely they can be actioned at a more reasonable rate, or through other Wikipedia process, such as cleanup?


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I'll check back again later :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'm trying to get the RFC back online (it's currently userfied as everyone forgot to certify it); if you certify it at User:Jersey Devil/RFC we can move it back to the RFC page.  I would rather try and reconcentrate the discussion at the RFC than all over AFD....  I suspect you agree with this approach, but if not, then feel free to do nothing.  Have a good day.    Georgewilliamherbert 03:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that the RfC was not certified by anyone was not "forgotten," and had been noted on both the Project and Discussion pages of the RfC in some detail. I'd recommend a new RfC; relisting the old one would seem to be saying that more than 48 hours can be given to people to meet the minimum requirements.  I think the complaint should also indicate attempts to resolve the conflict that were made after the uncertified RfC.  Esquizombi 04:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Orlando Eastwood
I've re-tagged this as, due to ongoing consensus to delete among registered Wikipedians, and a complete failure by supporters to produce evidence or arguments favoring notability. Unfounded dissent shouldn't automatically extend the life of an unambiguously non-notable article :)

Cheers! — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Consensus wasn't there when I untagged the page; I should prefer to see it deleted anyway. Stifle 13:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family tree of Uthman ibn Affan
Please review your vote here. You expressed that this article be kept by my reasoning, yet I expressed the deletion of this article. Pepsidrinka 03:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're too linear! :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings
Greetings from an Indian wikipedian. I saw you on this page, and just felt like saying you a hello. Let us sometimes exchange our wiki-experience to build the best global encyclopedia. --Bhadani 07:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! My contact info is on my userpage, so feel free to drop me a note or an e-mail if you have any questions about Wikipedia! :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Hi and peace. I saw you comment on User:Jersey_Devil/RFC and belive you might be intrested in what happened later, see Requests_for_comment/Jersey_Devil. I would appreciate if you signed Requests_for_comment/Jersey_Devil, so that the rfc survives. Thanks. --Striver 03:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Striver's statement of the dispute is "User:Jersey Devil needs to be admonished for not heeding the advices he received after he afd'd a bunch of my articles, and instead proceded to afd a new bunch of articles." As far as I can tell, the advice you (Adrian) gave came after the second batch. I believe Striver needs someone who "contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem" prior to the second batch Requests_for_comment. Requests for comment/Jersey Devil states "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users" (emphasis added). Your post on Jersey Devil's talk page seems to relate to the second batch of AfDs, not the first one. In order to certify Striver's dispute, it would seem to me that you would have to believe that Jersey Devil did not heed your advice and proceeded to AfD a "new bunch of articles" after you gave your advice, and that your therefore had failed to resolve the dispute. Maybe this is overly technical, but that's what the rules seem to state. Esquizombi 06:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Striver's wording is sufficiently ambiguous with respect to the precise timespan implicated in the alleged course of conduct that I feel comfortable endorsing this WP:RFC. It's clear what *kind* of conduct User:Striver is offended by, it's clear from the existence of this RFC that my efforts to mediate failed, and by that basis, I do certify this dispute.


 * Thank you though, for your attention to detail and process. It's quite commendable, and I'm glad you're out there keeping an eye on the areas between "process is important" and WP:IAR.


 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Where do I report vandalism in order to get a user blocked? 209.68.96.107 vandalised the Ralph Nader page, which I reverted. This users is apparently a serial vandal. Thanks, Esquizombi 19:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I got it. Though giving multiple last warnings to an obvious vandal and then not delivering on the promise to block is rather ineffective. Esquizombi 19:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Can i ask for a little help
I was wondering would you please help me as i'm not 100% sure on what to do. This user User:Unixer keeps adding my username on his userpage. Now i do not know this person and i do not want it on there. They asked me a stupid question thats how i noticed it. I have asked several times for them to remove it but they refuse to. I have deleted it off his page but he keeps adding it back there and said he will not remove it. Now this person doesnt know me and i dont know them and i dont want it there. Could you please help. Thank you (Lil crazy thing 11:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

Indented topics on talk page?
I can't figure out why the topics below Math of Quran on my talk page are indented, could you take a look? Esquizombi 21:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Page Eating
I'll be sure to get to eating your page as soon as Rouge adminning and going on page deleting ramapges is a Good Thing (TM) is passed. Chances aren't good, though. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  23:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey
Are you the Adrian Lamo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.29.137 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, he is. --maru  (talk)  contribs 06:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I know this user in the real world and can also attest--this is the Adrian Lamo. Just look at the pic on the userpage (which is his real picture) and look at the pic on the Adrian Lamo article. Notice a resemblance? The Ungovernable Force 08:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen him interviewed on the late, lamented Screen Savers. I'm glad to see he walks the streets a free man! Tex 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note
Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Cel es tianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Timeline and Infamous Hacks
Hi Adrian,

Please could you add on the infamous hacks page specifics regarding your proposed merge to Timeline_of_hacker_history and how you best feel such a merge should occur. I am slowly cleaning up the timeline and getting rid of the filth, and am not too sure what to do about your nomination for merger. The information on infamous hacks is a droll index to other articles, mainly about hackers who have been caught, and most of this is already in the timeline, albeit in varied and often wrong places *sigh*. Also besides arrests, I don't see much connection between these people, expect for infamy, which probably is due to the arrests. If I were to document many aspects of these peoples lives it would certainly clog up the timeline. I could add most notable features of their career, like demoing vulnerabiities to news agencies or realing major exploits and/or whistles, but this is all covered in their personal articles.

If you could provide any insight into a merger it would be much appreciated, because I am feeling conflicted about merging anything at all, and might just nominate the infamous hacks page for deletion and let the users start again on the timeline page.

Thanks,

Marc

Funny AfD
You always said that people come to defend the strangest things on Wikipedia... This made me think of that. Hope you come back sometime. Grand master  ka  00:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Verification
Hi, could you verify that this comment was made by you? Cheers -Emery


 * Yep, it's the real deal.
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review/Israel News Agency
Hi, you contributed to discussions at Articles for deletion/Israel News Agency. It was deleted by User:Danny, but not done as an Office Action. As you contributed to the original AFD, I was wondering if you would take the opportunity to make comment at DRV. Please note that if it remains deleted then I'm not terribly fussed. However, because the community found that it was notable and should be kept and it was not slanderous (that I can see) I relisted it. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And damn, when I left this message I feel like I'd stepped into the pages of Wired! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Your signature…
…seems to consist of a transclusion from here. Since I am assured by the devs that if you put an actual template in your signature preference, it will be automagically SUBSTituted, I assume that you are using some clever cloaking trick to preserve the transclusion, something like &#123;&#123;User:Adrian/zap2&#125;&#125;. Since the guidelines on signatures now strongly recommend against this technique, can I make a plea that you alter your usage to directly transclude the text? I can also offer my help to fix up the 966 instances that are currently still live if you like… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A close reading of the concerns listed on the page you cite will show that neither of the problems -- vandalism or frequent re-caching -- are an issue here, as my signature is static, and not editable by regular users.
 * Thank you for your concern, and for working to keep Wikipedia tidy and stable :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What's Happening?
Haven't seen or talked to you for at least a month or more. Everything ok? The Ungovernable Force 04:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Adrian
Hi Adrian, just letting you know I came back to Wikipedia. Just wondering were have you been, you've dropped to less than semi-active lately, so I stopped in to say Hi. I know we don't know eachother much, but your edit still and does mean a lot to me when you made that comment. ;) Cheers! -- from The King   of Kings  02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Good luck tomorrow
Good luck on your motion to dismiss tomorrow, I hope the courts see reason! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 03:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A month from tomorrow, actually <3
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I can't read.... ♥ Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading is overrated, and ideas are dangerous : )
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What's life without risk? Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sunshine's .... dangerous. Sugar .... can be poisonous. Bewaaaaaaaare ... of too much happiness. Looooooovee ... well that's obvious ...
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Skydiving! Running! BDSM! Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 04:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mary French (Attorney)
Well if you don't want it to happen you could always write up the article in a text editor first then transfer it over to Wikipedia when you have it complete that way it won't get the speedy tag. Whispering 04:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like my idea of "not nuking things the second they're posted" better, but your way has a kind of colloquial charm too.
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cyrus Farivar Reloaded
I'm a relatively new user reopening this issue: The following comments are a reply to Morton devonshire, who questioned my notability tag (and I suspect, removed the tag without either addressing the issue, or knowing the background. Sorry to clog your page quoting my comments in full but I see that Vfd, notability tags and other stuff mysteriously disappear from the Farivar page. Perhaps delete all this later? I think it's important for WKP that this issue be decided and the legitimate majority view be carried:

Hi, thanks for your prompt feedback. I don't feel you addressed my reasons for tagging the page, and these reasons are not affected by what happened last year (I have read up a lot of the past discussion, but I'm not at all convinced). On consideration, I feel the Cyrus Farivar page will eventually go as it is clearly:

decidedly not notable - the subject is not notable in himself, andn greenlighting was not a notable hoax

the count of the last deletion vote (Aug '05)came down firmly on the side of 'delete' - how does this come to mean 'keep'?

mainly based on a trivial subject - a non-event, in fact

a page intended as a self-promotional tool, rather than to be informational

refers almost entirely to itself - no importance in the wider world

a bad precedent

The issue of CF 'criticising' WKP is simply begging the question, I wasn't aware that he did so. I note that my notability tag has been removed without any notability being added. I am determined to have a debate about this page on principle, and if notability is not discussed, will take it further. I'm also confident that if I take the discussion wider, I will find reasonable support for my stance.

IMHO the majority of the 'keep' votes are based on weak arguments, and/or a lack of perception of the issues: the hoax, notability etc.

Further, I am aware from my background reading that past raisings of this issue have disappeared. See Mrtourne's comments during the Aug '05 deletion discussion.

I should add that I am also going to push for the related 'Greenlighting hoax' page to be merged to 'hoaxes'. Again, it is extremely trivial, and almost entirely self-referential.

I would draw your attention also to the following comment by user Snowspinner (during Aug '05 deletion discussion).

Quote: Keep. I don't care if it was vanity created, it is a notable subject. In fact, I will go a step further. This article is being kept. I do not care what the outcome of the usual VfD suspects straw poll is. The article is being kept, and I will undelete it until the arbcom or Jimbo tells me to stop. Snowspinner 21:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC) End quote

I note also that the announcement of the result of the Aug '05 deletion vote being a 'keep' was made by the same user Snowspinner. As a new user, I respectfully suggest that he made a bad counting error.

My suggestion is that the page be deleted, and perhaps userfy-ed.

Centrepull 15:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't know what you're talking about. I've been following the Farivar page, and the accompanying debate, for months.  It's the reason I came to Wikipedia -- without Farivar's Slate article, I would never have heard about it.  Farivar is a God.  A Golden God.  And don't you forget it Boyo.  Dear Adrian, just now noticed your comment re me on the Feb 26 Afd on Counter-Misinformation -- what's up with that?  Not offended, just curious.  [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 

A short Esperanzial update
As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

i am worthless
i missed the PENIS PENIS PENIS vandalisms and i was actually awake at the time. i know, i know - i am a terrible person. Ytcracker 18:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever that was should seriously ask their doctor about Prozac.
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The anon vandal isn't the one who said "i am worthless". But I don't think Prozac helps... there have been allegations that it has made some people suicidal. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 19:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then we have our final solution to vandalism, no?
 * *insensitive*
 * <3
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I love Wikipedia, but not enough to kill people / cause people severe depression over. Besides, I have a vendetta against forced antidepressants. ♥ Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a great idea, lets change 'Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.' to 'Your life is worthless, your mother does not love you, no one loves you'. —Mineralè 2006-07-15 15:26Z 

Poke...
What's going on? Haven't seen you for ages, is everything ok? BTW, can't wait to see the movie! The Ungovernable Force 06:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Back in court on the 28th, you should come :) I'll be on-campus again in the fall ...
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where will it be? What time. I'll try to come if I'm not in class (doesn't class start a few days before that?). The Ungovernable   Force  01:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have class, I'll write you an excuse :)
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok Doctor! Hey, I just printed my first zine off of zinelibrary.net. Yay! I wasted a bunch of trees trying to get it right though, but I finally did just a minute ago. Well, time to find some other nice zines. So is it at the Sacramento courthouse? And what is it for? The Ungovernable   Force  02:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

That airplane thing
If an airplane stands on a treadmill runway that track's the plane's speed and moves at that same speed backwards, will the plane fly? —Mineralè 2006-07-14 07:14Z 


 * Yes. --maru  (talk)  contribs 02:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I deputize Maru as my spokesgeek in all matters Wiki, since he likes the job ; )
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Huzzah! Go me! --maru  (talk)  contribs 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent AfD
Hello. You recently participated in an AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Taco Bell menu. The article was deleted but is up for deletion review here. I thought you may be interested in participating in that discussion. Ifnord 03:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your name
Hi, in the talk page on Adrian Lamo, I saw people wondering about whether "Lamo" is your real name. I also thought if this is true, it would be a fun coincidence. So tell me, is it really your real name? And if so, is it indeed pronounced "Lame-o"?

Thank you. 82.92.73.193 15:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think h4x0rZ are t3h 1337.


 * Hi. My last name is, from birth, Lamo. In the old country, "a" is pronounced like the "a" in the word "father," more or less. Here, you can pronounce it pretty much however you want; it's all the same to me.


 * Hope this helps. Adrian the anti-hacking dog says be cool, stay in school.
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the audio version [[Media:Lamo.ogg|How to Pronounce Adrian Lamo]] - Paid for by - Friends of Adrian Lamo for a better America

In soviet russia...
Things learn you 65.13.3.52 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mehehehe
What would be the chances that I get back my old ip address ? -- A year later 65.13.3.52 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's great. Of course, time being circular, it was inevitable.
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops
I feel a little embarrassed about that sorry. Just seemed important to get the unreferenced people of that page until I (or someone else) found sources. Can I ask how for the web address of your NNDB entry so I can cite it (or feel free to do so yourself).

Hope I didn't offend, WJBscribe 02:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied to user here ...
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that NNDB entries are used to support a number of entries both on that list and in List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people for celebrities that one would not expect to see on such lists. How accurate is it if you don't have the subject of the entry to confirm its truthfulness? WJBscribe


 * Out of an abundance of caution, I wouldn't use NNDB as a sole source for any controversial information not confirmed in multiple independent venues. It's more corroborative than informative, since some of the material comes from independent unverified original research by the site admins.


 * Of course, that guideline applies to any other source as well -- Wikipedia is not "You saw it here first!" material, so there's no need to rush if something can't be corroborated. The truth finds its own way, and patience will see it through.


 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. Oh, and having read your article on Wikipedia - good luck for Dec 11. WJBscribe 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Not a problem. I'm not as active on Wikipedia as I'd used to be, but I check stuff regularly and make periodic corrections to articles that interest me, so I get messages in a fairly zippy fashion. Please consider me at your disposal should you need assistance in the future :)

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually I thought that was a good suggestion. I find it a lot easier when sigs link to talk pages. I've only had an account for less than a month though so hadn't got round to working out how to change my sig. Right, here goes. Shall test it out here... -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 03:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Refined it a little. Think I'll stick with this for now. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 04:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lamoascii.png
Hi, with regards to this image, it's still consdiered orphaned despite your putting it on a subpage in your user space (especially since your subpage consists of nothing but that image AND it's an orphan page). If you really want to keep it, put it on your main user page or expand your subpage into something more meaningful and link it from somewhere. I'll look into deleting it tomorrow. Regards,  howch e  ng   {chat} 01:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Replied to user @ hereabouts

Homoflexibles/bisexuals divergence
Hi, I saw your vote at the AfD for the homoflexibles page and thought I would clarify. I don't think the bisexuals list is in danger of losing subtle distinctions. Rather I think those editing the page are trying as best as possible to come to a criteria for inclusion. At the moment the list includes everyone from those who have once in their life deviated form their stated preference to those who have publically declared themselves bisexual. In many cases references have been weak. What I for one would like to work towards is having the central focus of the list those who have self-described as bisexual. Those whom it has been confirmed have had cross-gender relationships should perhaps be listed as well but under an appropriate heading- ensuring that everyone is 'labeled' as fairly is possible. Categorising bisexuaility is inherently complicated- if we accept the Kinsey scale most people are to some extent bisexual, but for encyclopedic purposes I think a criteria for inclusion is needed. TerriNunn's fork is an attempt to promote her own POV that anyone who has ever been rumoured to be involved with someone outside their usual sexual preference is a closet (my word) bisexual- if there is such a thing. Your input on the List of bisexuals would be appreciated as we try to work out a sensible framework for working out who to include on the page.

PS. I rather like Image:Lamoascii.png and the artistic resonance of such an image depicting a notorious hacker. Surely it could be put to wider use. -WJBscribe (WJB talk) 02:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, I agree that a centralized article with more development would be better. If the WP:AFD hasn't closed, you are free to strike my vote.
 * Also, I replied to the gent from the WP:IFD at his own talk page, iff'n you're interested.
 * I hear Hacker has a lousy photo ... ; )
 * — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

adrian lamo
wow. you are wellcome. i will try do it with attention and patience. sincerely, alexandre, from brazil. Abmac 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by...
Are you going to be back at ARC for spring? Hope everything's going well. Anything interesting? I'm getting plastic surgery on Tuesday. Skateboarding is fun, except for when you faceplant after your biology final while on a concrete incline and need 17 stiches above your eye and surgery to fix a deviated septum. I know from experience. At least I got an A in the biology class.  Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I was aiming to drop by tomorrow, in fact. —— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-08 12:13Z 


 * }