User talk:HamburgerRadio

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Maybe you want to join WikiProject Computer Security?
Hi HamburgerRadio, I just saw the good work you're doing to all kinds of virus and trojan related articles. Maybe you can consider joining WikiProject Computer Security, a wikiproject dedicated to exactly those kinds of articles? Hope to see you there! --DanielPharos (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of it, I just don't feel like pigeonholing myself. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem! Keep up the good work! :) --DanielPharos (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel right asking for assistance without joining it, so I added myself. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

World Peace (computer virus) & MacMag (computer virus)
You suggested merging these two articles. I have now done so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A-403 (computer virus)
A significant portion of the computer virus articles are stubs. A vast number of computer viruses are listed, but no article for them exists. Said articles and lists are subject to vandalism, and many others are of unacceptable quality.

It may be desirable to have some minimum criteria for including a mention of a virus in Wikipedia, as well as some conventions to avoid copyright issues. Can you suggest any ideas?

Perhaps a virus needs to be listed by at least three antivirus sites in order to receive mention on one of the lists of computer viruses, worms, etc. This would help manage the lists, but I'm not sure what a "good" virus article looks like, though it's easier to say what should not be in a good virus article.

Having an agree-upon standard for virus articles established would be nice (e.g. all computer virus articles shall be suffixed with "(computer virus)", as in "Foo (computer virus)"), and let us delete more virus articles in a uniform way. More specifically, a standard for the articles' content. In practice, enforcing such standards across Wikipedia is a nontrivial maintenance burden, but a bot or two might help.

Still, there could be some educational value in the shorter virus articles, but I suppose that's a matter of taste.

Thanks, A-Day (c) (t) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a deletionist, it was just the only solution to an unsalvagable article in this case. In the general case, a list should be easier to protect from vandalism. The decision of whether to break an article from the list is an editorial decision; if there's enough info, that it can't be contained in a list format, then break it into its own article. Of course the info should be from a reliable source, so of course that limits which articles have a lot of info, and thus which make it as articles.
 * If there is a minimum number of mentions, it should be at least two, first because single source articles make for bad writing, second because there may be copyright traps of descriptions of non-existent viruses.
 * I don't agree with "computer virus" after every title; it seems to be at odds with Wikipedia naming standards. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback granted
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Jamie S93  18:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert
are you on crack or something? that edit was rv'ing vandalism, stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by CNGLITCHINFO (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was an accident, sorry. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese People
Deleting all the sections of alleged Muslim and Sub-Saharan sections that some little Tacobell Hispano wrote is not violation; it is giving back the offense and insult to a race which is in every way more European and White than Moorish Spain ever will be. Do not attempt to repost that filth about the Portuguese. It is totally untrue, exaggerated, based on fabrications and lies. If you wish to put that inforamtion on Spain; that is much more appropriate- their language has over 4,000 Arabic words, Portuguese has about 800; so based just on the cultural-linguistic statistics, there is something VERY wrong with this alleged Muslim nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.167.221 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on the topic but the sources appear good. If there is an error, correct it(and show your sources), rather than blanking the entire section. Or use Talk:Portuguese people --HamburgerRadio (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever may be the validity or otherwise of the information in question, the statement that suggesting that Portuguese people have significant African ancestry is "offense" and "insult" is straightforward racialism. Generally speaking, expressing racialist views is likely to antagonise others, and reduce, rather than increase, support for your position. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I was reverting what appeared to be obvious vandalism. I won't revert it again; if there's a problem, take it up with the original authors or the article's talk page. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Law of Cosines
HamvergerRadio, please note: The "Laws of Cosines" is plural, NOT singular. There are three formulas based on the article's triangular drawing. They are as follows


 * $$a^2 = b^2 + c^2 - 2bc\cos(\alpha)\,$$
 * $$b^2 = a^2 + c^2 - 2ac\cos(\beta)\,$$
 * $$c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2ab\cos(\gamma)\,$$

You can Google the "Laws of Cosines" and verify this easy fact.

Sincerely, Mike Brady, mbrady94107@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.110.161 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I don't intend on discouraging you if you are making good faith edits. I'm not a math expert, your edits just set off some red flags to people watching recent changes. It may help to :
 * Sign up for an account
 * Use "Show preview" to avoid leaving half-complete edits
 * Use an Edit summary so people understand the reason behind your edits
 * Cite your sources, preferably something that obviously supports your edits, that recent changes patrollers can check immediately
 * and finally, you may have biased the regulars against your proposed changes already, so you may have to put the reasoning behind your edit on the talk page --HamburgerRadio (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't make malicious edits ... Mike Brady
 * Good. I don't believe you are a malicious editor. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Halloween
I have no idea why you have reverted - "turnip" is ambiguous - in Ireland "turnip" means a yellow turnip - Americans call these "Rutabagas" (which I have never heard of but is the Wiki article name) and English call them "Swedes" - I merely clarified by linking to the corresponding Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.129.1.42 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I already took back my warning. I just thought you were causing trouble, making a link that says one thing, going to another thing. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that...
I accidentally posted a warning to you instead of the vandal you were fighting, and it appears said vandal is dead set on putting it back. You are doing a perfectly fine job, ignore that IP.  Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  19:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, he won't give up easily. He's been reported. This will all end soon.  Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  19:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, he is blocked, thanks. To any admin looking at this, the anon IP was adding false warnings of vandalism to my page, after I warned the IP about real vandalism they were doing. My reverts were to remove the harassment from my own talk page. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the two reverts on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I am a student at Boston Latin School and a countributive writer for the school newspaper "The Argo". In the last hour, I had made several examples of vandalism to three individual articles as an experiment for an upcoming report on the reliability of Wikipedia as a schoolwork source. I am satisfied to see all three edits of vandalism were revert in less than 4 minutes. I apologize for any confusion, and thank you for serving as an example of Wikipedia's excellent dependability! --76.19.142.114 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars
What's the deal with the STOPzilla page ? there has clearly been an attempt to sanitize any negative remarks about the product. Look at the history, even reviews in published magazines have been deleted. It's clear fact that there are many reports of negative experiences. Are you an employ of the publisher ? What other motivation could you possibly have to defend this page so aggressively ?
 * If you want to bring the information in the article in line with what published sources say, feel free. As long as it's verifiable. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem, There is *LOTS* of negative info out there but if you are going to require that forums and discussions are not good enough then we are at an impasse. I know of other pages that use such as source, I was going to list them, but thought better of it. If negative information may not be posted then we should return the warning that was displayed on top of this version that indicates that reads like and Add, or just remove the page entirely as it is currently just propaganda and spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.0.230 (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The exclusion of forums as a source is Wikipedia policy and not my choice. If you think the advert tag would help, then add it back. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How do I go about reporting what I believe are edits on the Stopzilla page by an employee of company that makes it. ? 74.223.130.162 has chronicly deleted (even referenced) negative material about the product and geobytes puts that ip address within an hour of the IS3 address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.0.230 (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's Dispute resolution. More specifically related to this topic may be Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or No original research/Noticeboard. I'll have a look too. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead end page
Then what does dead end page mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superjoesh (talk • contribs) 23:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea what this comment means. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

G-Unit Records.
Thank you for reverting that blatant attack. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 18:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Legos
No problem, just trying to help out Cathardic (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Consecutive vandals
Your recent revert of Gloria Allred went to an also vandalized version. Please remember to check against consecutive vandals. Keep up the good work. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Thanks for catching that. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, you keep getting reverts in 2 seconds before me! Keep up the great work. Cathardic (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Hello! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pesir (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Can I help you? --HamburgerRadio (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that catch
Just saying thanks for catching my typo on Operation: Bot Roast. It's a bit of an obscure article, not sure how you caught it, but it's good that you did all the same. Dashren2001 (talk) 6:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiger JK
Are you keeping an eye on this? The most recent spate of edits don't all seem too helpful, but you've been active there too and too many cooks may spoil the stew here. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a quick typo fix on an article passing by. I'm not doing any extended monitoring on it. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmm that's unfortunate. Now I feel morally obligated to dive into that mess... Drmies (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

RE Martin Hansson
May I refer you to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1229025/WORLD-CUP-PLAY-OFFS-LIVE-Ireland-crash-World-Cup-Henrys-hand-helps-French-through.html Perhaps you may wish to reconsider regarding my edit as vandalism, now?Jatrius (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still way over the top, non-constructive edits. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He's a non-constructive referee Jatrius (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved
Moved this page from Officer of The Salvation Army to Officer in The Salvation Army. When you apply to become an Officer, it states that you are applying to be an "Officer in The Salvation Army". Which makes sense, because looking at the quasi-military structure of TSA, military soldiers / officers aren't OF an army, they are IN an army. --Parradudes (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to the war on vandalism. I have reverted what appeared to be vandalism to your user page. Though this is not commonly done, if your user page becomes the consistent victim of vandalism, and it appears you're here to stay for awhile, you may want to befriend an admin and see if they'll semi-protect your page. Mkdw talk 08:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user pages. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Oborne
Hi, you might like to double check the Peter Oborne article you just reverted my changes on. I was reverting someone else changes which seemed to introduce an anti-Semitic slant to the page. The line in question should be "Why the US is our greatest enemy" became "Why the US and Israel are our greatest emeny" with some vitriolic remarks about Zionist media elsewhere on the page. Thanks. Jnthn0898 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant to revert the edit before yours and yours got reverted instead. Sorry. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Reward message
Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page! I really apreciate it and as reward for that I give you this:



Damërung has given you a Hershey Bar! Hershey bars promote WikiLove through chololately goodness and hopefully this one has made your day better. Hershey bars are wonderfully delicious! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Hershey bar, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Hershey bars by adding {{subst:Hershey Bar}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

I Hope you liked it. - ☩ Damërung ☩ . -- 00:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page! &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 05:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Who blanked your userpage?
Why is your userpage blank? 129.21.67.10 (talk) 09:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cause I never put anything there. It gets vandalized now and then, but better nothing than vandalism. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for saving my talk page! 7 13:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Section
An article that you have been involved in editing, Section, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. –  imis ☂ 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes
I will reconsider myself more before I check the minor edit box.

Tuanese 05:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuanese (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your msg
Hi - Thanks for your msg in my edit on Wizards... I actually do have an account - but occasionally I forget to log in after delting cookies or wiki throws my auto-log-off after 30 days ;-)

Cheers

FFall1986 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:131.212.207.154
Hi, good work on your vandal-fighting however, it appears that you simply welcomed the above user despite his only edit being vandalism (which you failed to correct). I've gone ahead and reverted/warned but thought I'd let you know, subtle vandalism to a list of numbers is the most difficult to spot but arguably some of the worst! Regards, RaseaC (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Thanks for pointing that out! It IS hard to spot, especially when Huggle doesn't give the full context of the table. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

flip tricks
By cleaning and only having cited tricks I am vandalizing a page? A page with dozens of false information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.163.128 (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like we we're both writing in each other's talk page at the same time. If it's a content issue I won't get involved. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Radical Comics
Hamburger,

I see that you feel that undid my edit. Does this mean that mentioning any and all pending litigations for every company on wiki is something you condone.

Does this mean that in the history of every company on wiki I should go around and mention their pending litigations, especially when that poses a direct violation of the Terms of Use and the neutral point of view of this site.

Before I re-undo your edit, I would appreciate your feedback.

I look forward to hearing back.

Thanks.Megaman2008 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit as it appeared to be unconstructive. If there is an actual content dispute I won't get involved. But, I think you are misinterpreting WP:NLT as it doesn't mean that Wikipedia can't report on legal threats reported in reliable sources. So yes, Wikipedians can report on pending litigation that has been reported on in reliable sources. As to whether they should in each specific case is an editorial decision, and I'm not going to get involved in an content decision here. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI by new account
FYI, a new editor has (clumsily) listed you as a suspected sock at this SPI. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks also!


Thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page before I could!  fetch  comms  ☛ 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine too. You were quick—I stared at the page for a second, thinking "What new message?" Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your welcome. I must however admit I already worked using an wikipedia accout, but simply accidentally deleted my browser cookies, therefore I did this contribution accidentally as IP. (I write this also under my IP because I don't want to create a link between my account and the IP). Anyway, I think you deserve a barn star for writing all those welcome messages.

British Rail Class 180
Please don't be so quick to revert changes using Huggle, particularly where they are by inexperienced users. It shouldn't have taken too much work on your part to find the intended target for the link and doing that would have been more helpful than warning them about linking to non existent pages.

On a slightly different issue, I note your userpage was created by someone else against your wishes and has been the target of vandalism. I'll delete the empty page and semi-protect it to reduce the risk of further vandalism by new or anonymous users. Regards. Adambro (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting. Looks like its my turn. Hmm - Reconsider !  08:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:vandalism
I've semi-protected this page for a while. IPs and new users will not be able to edit it until the block expires, which should give you a bit of a break. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error on the Trojan Horse page
As you can see from my double edit, something happened twice. I first put those words back in, but then it seems took them out again. Not sure how that happened, or why. At any rate, you're quite right, the words need to be in there. Trojan Horses don't self-replicate. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --Danfreedman (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

David Napier (marine engineer)
In the David Napier article, the reference to the Gazetteer for Scotland is incorrect. Read it! The correct information is: In 1827, Mr. David Napier built the paddle steamer "Aglaia", which had an iron bottom, and wooden sides above water, to ply on Loch Eck. She was afterwards called the "James Gallacher," and plied on the Clyde. Her dimensions were as follows: Length, 62' 8"; breadth, 13' 0"; depth, 4' 6"; gross tonnage, 49 36/94 tons. Source: Charles F.T. Young: The Fouling and Corrosion of Iron Ships: Their Causes and Means of Prevention, with Mode of Application to the Existing Iron-Clads. The London Drawing Association, London, 1867. pp 36-49. The world’s first iron steamer was in fact the paddle steamer “Aaron Manby” of 1821 source: Wikipedia. ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.42 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the comment I left. I didn't comment on the factual accuracy, I left you a note because you left the article in an unreadable state. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

comp win linux
Your edit to Comparison of Windows and Linux where you removed the following:
 * If malicious software is installed on a Linux-based system, locating can be equally difficult, but removal is much easier. Malicious source code can simply be deleted, and the software recompiled.

and your edit summary
 * Security: whaaa? recompiling is easier than (unspecified) alternatives? it's uncited so i'll just remove that

allows me to meet you and share answers to these situations. Now, I'm going to discuss as if we were on the talk page discussing the removal.
 * 1) Editing_policy
 * 2) The alternative is re-installation of the entire OS or application.
 * 3) citation needed works like a charm.

Issue: "locating can be equally difficult". No. You just run an automated system scanner.

Issue: "Removal is much easier." Now, say both the Linux and the Windows infection will be in the binary form of an equally obscure file tucked deep inside some package. In order to delete the malware, the infected file would have to be reverse compiled. Microsoft does not allow it. The reverse compiled version would not be -able. You'd have to have been the author or a maintainer or someone very familiar with the source code to find what to delete.

Issue: "The alternative is more difficult". The original Windows OS or application installation file must be located. Linux source is on disk. How difficult would it be to find and extract that file from the package? It is entirely context dependent. It depends on knowing the package name, which depends on the file: it could be obvious, or not, depending on where in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard the infection was found. An installation process is composed of several automated subprocesses, most of which are big and dangerous, but some of the install apps have a "repair" option, which seems safe and easy enough. With Linux recompiling is easy:.

My last statement: We should put it back, but change it to "If an infected file is located on Linux, it is possible to do a surgically precise repair or replacement without out re-installing the entire package or operating system, even if the kernel is infected."

What do you think? &mdash; Cp i r al Cpiral  06:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in my defense, the sentence as it was was just wrong on so many levels, that trying to fix it would say something totally different, and that section was already kind of stretching logic. As for coming up with an alternative, or explaining my own reasoning, I'd like to take that to the talk page of the article. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:)
Thank chief, but I am not new. I am wikipedia member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.115.227 (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

yeah, same here. and those messages are creepy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.74.216 (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Afewerki
I described what I did and the explanation for it was given. I don't understand why you reverted it.83.86.106.94 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looked like referenced material, and I don't see an obvious reason it wouldn't meet WP:RS. If there's a legitimate content issue, I won't get involved, and the talk page for the article can be used if there is a disagreement with other editors. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiger Woods (dog)
Would you approve if I substituted the word 'trash' for something more suitable? 95.149.79.182 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already been through Articles for deletion and survived, so you're unlikely to get anywhere by tagging it for deletion. Likely the only option is to try to get other editors interested in improving it. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

mongols
i have corrected errors from english Wikipedia.

according to polish wikipedia, mongols invaded Poland in 1241, 1259, 1287 but not in 1286


 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_najazd_mongolski_na_Polsk%C4%99
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/II_najazd_mongolski_na_Polsk%C4%99
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/III_najazd_mongolski_na_Polsk%C4%99

additional according to polish sources, poland invaded by Lithuanians, Ruthenians and Prussians in 1286, but not by Mongols.

See also campaigns in poland 1278-1288 site 33


 * http://books.google.de/books?id=eQv_ZR85ePoC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=najazd+litwin%C3%B3w+1286&source=bl&ots=hYf3IzBOQy&sig=CS182f-E2-cHLS1q-Z3xanrXZ_0&hl=de&ei=Zp02S6iQJpGi_AatwcmCCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCEQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=najazd%20litwin%C3%B3w%201286&f=false

93.222.90.84 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Though I'm a long-time editor, just too lazy to log-in most times. Did I do something wrong? 125.24.128.108 (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope you're fine. I'm just a one-man welcoming committee. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sergio Viaggio
When one encounters a page that has been blanked, one should check the history to see if that editor created the page. In that case the proper response is to add db-author. The improper response is to revert. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't even realize this was getting blanked by the author. Well, the author has my apologies for my reaction. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob, just wanted to point it out. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

noel mccullagh
from noel mccullagh Hi HamburgerRadio from Noel McCullagh

Recently this page has become the target of some very personal edits from people on wikipedia. I myself have also been subject to a sustained krank telephone-call campaign since before Xmass. Im getting also really horrible emails from unknown people that are not signed. I'm surry Martin, but I am at my wits end. and all this does not make live living iwth a crippling illness any easier to do. So please, I don't know how to do it exactly, but I am very weak and ill at the moment.

Please remove this page and the statements, information, chat, fun it makes of my serious medical condition. Noel 20:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barentsz (talk • contribs)

stopzilla, again...
Please help me understand why hphosts/host-file is not a valid source. It isn't just somebody's blog, it's a service that evaluates and maintains a list of various evil websites. They have stopzilla.com listed as a "fraudulent security application" site. If IS3 has a problem with that, they should take it up with them. hphosts record for stopzilla hphost classifications —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangry (talk • contribs) 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, I don't see anything in the reliable sources page that would indicate it's a usable source. Second, hosts-file.net WHOIS information is registered with Domains By Proxy, which doesn't exactly fill with confidence. Third, they don't want to be used as a source --HamburgerRadio (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of VirusTotal.com


A tag has been placed on VirusTotal.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of VirusTotal.com and leave a note on |the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
 * This article had the advert tag removed after only minor additions, and since only uncited info has been added. Alexa and mention in a 100 item list in a three year old PC World article are the only listed secondary sources. WP:NOTE WP:RS Unixfg (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Fairfax County Public Schools
FYI - I have protected the Fairfax County Public Schools article from editing due to the current content dispute. Please discuss the issues on the talk page and attempt to reach a resolution there. Requests for specific edits to the article can be made by and adding a template to the talk page after demonstrating consensus for the change. Thank you. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of BloodhoundV2 Trojan Horse
An article that you have been involved in editing, BloodhoundV2 Trojan Horse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bwrs (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Protecting your userpage
Since your userpage seems to be suffering from an excessive amount of vandalism. I have taken the liberty of giving it full protection. If you would rather that was not done, feel free to ask me or any other admin and we will undo it for you. Likewise if you would like to add some content while it is protected, create a page with the content in and someone will move it there for you. I hope this is helpful.DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Um...
What the hell are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.187.9 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of MyWay Searchbar
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as MyWay Searchbar, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Bryzal (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm
You seem to be inactive, but, just out of curiosity, on the off chance that you see this... you wouldn't happened to be named Paul, would you? (That's all I'll ask, per WP:OUTING.) — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  01:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Used to be a guy at my school who often used "Hamburger" as a username on websites, and I happened to notice that you'd edited the article on the school long long ago. Odd coincidence. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  10:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Computer Security user status
Hello HamburgerRadio,

I would just like to inquire on your status on WikiProject Computer Security as the list of WikiProject Computer Security/Members is going to be improved to list active and inactive users.

This is update is being done according to a request for comments on the WikiProject Computer Security talk page. Be sure to state your status at the User status section in the WikiProject Computer Security talk page before the end of four weeks as this will state your status as inactive in the project if not done before then.

FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)