User talk:K;;m5m k;;m5m

Welcome
ukexpat (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Linux/Unix
"The Linux kernel is monolithic, whereas UNIX's kernel was a microkernel. BSD, Solaris, OS X, HP-UX, and AIX all use UNIX-like kernels but don't use Linux. Linux is definitely a knockoff of UNIX". You've made changes to several pages with this reasoning. You seem to have a personal view against Linux being a family of OS, but that doesn't seem to match consensus. Before making more edits along these lines, can you try to reach a consensus on this issue? Fences and windows (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is best that you first go to the talk page and seek a consensus for this change. Just because Linux was based off of Unix does not mean it cannot be its own genre of operating system. I am going to assume you do not have some sort of bias against linux until it becomes unreasonable to do so. Chillum  02:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't make the change. It was that way, and someone else changed it to "GNU/Linux." Where was there consensus to change it in the first place?--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, there is more of a difference between Windows 98 and Windows 2000 than there is between Linux and UNIX.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One major difference is that the Unix license would not have been compatible with the license Ubuntu sought to have. Linux did. Ubuntu is built off of Linux, not Unix no matter how similar the two systems are. Chillum  06:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about an operating system, not a license. As for Linux, what is it based on? UNIX. I've heard about the "*nix family" of operating systems, but I haven't heard about a "Linux family" anywhere. I've always thought of a family as being a large grouping (e.g., the Indo-European language family). They are divided into branches, or groups.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus on this was reached months ago on Talk:Linux. K;;m5m k;;m5m was restoring the status quo. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unix-like" is not a family of operating systems. It's only an informal way to say that system is similar to Unix. Moreover, the kernel shouldn't be confused to the distribution. In my point of view, only the Linux kernel should be considered really the operating systems and Ubuntu, Slackware, Fedora, Gentoo, etc. are nothing more than a distribution of Linux; i.e.; the kernel Linux packaged with other softwares, but I lost this discussion since the community decided that all the Linux distributions (and not only the Linux kernel) should be considered operating systems by their own right. However, we cannot say these Linux distributions are like OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, HP-UX and so on, because these operating systems don't use the Linux kernel and come directly from Unix. These systems are certified by the Open Group as "Unix", while Linux is not. And there are no reasons for omitting that the distributions that use the Linux kernel and are certified by the Linux Standard Base don't belong to the "Linux" family. Fsolda (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cor, this is much more complicated than I thought :) Sorry K;;m5m k;;m5m, I didn't realise you were reverting to status quo. I think some form of compromise would be ideal, e.g. Unix-like (GNU/Linux). Fences and windows (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There already was a perfectly acceptable compromise. Including "GNU/Linux", a fringe term, is not an acceptable compromise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Unix is a Monolithic kernel. You're probably thinking of Minix, which Linus Torvalds studied before writing Linux. 140.180.175.90 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk Regulars
Thank you for all your contributions to the Wikipedia Reference Desk! In recognition of your work I have added your name to the list of Reference Desk Regulars. If you would prefer not to be listed, please let me know or simply remove your signature. Thanks again, and happy editing! –  7 4   09:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material
Repeatedly attempting to edit-war unsourced material in the encyclopedia is a fantastic way to have your editing career cut short, so, unless you're looking to have editing privileges revoked, stop it immediately. What you need to know is this: Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V) requires that all material added to the encyclopedia come with a source. Any information that doesn't have a source may be removed at any time by any editor. If you think a piece of information belongs in the encyclopedia, find sources.  Warren -talk- 06:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not a very good liar. You're not even an administrator, and "WP:V" says, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references."--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you planning on providing references? A one-word answer will suffice.   Warren -talk- 06:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Then accept that the information doesn't belong there, and leave the article alone. I'd also encourage you to read WP:HOUND, and consider finding something to do other than looking at my recent edits and reverting them.   Warren -talk- 06:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have other things to do, but I can't get to them until you face the facts.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant kernel file sizes
Please, do not keep adding your "Specifications" section. It is not appropriate for the following reasons: Jdm64 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It's on the general kernel page, that data is more appropriate on comparison of kernels page
 * 2) You didn't use wiki formating you used html, very bad.
 * 3) While windows and mac will have about the same kernel size, most other kernel have vastly different sizes. My linux kernel is 2,293,520.
 * I guess I could add the information to the comparison entry. But using HTML is not bad. It's better than wiki code because it's more intuitive and more people know it. HTML is one of the easiest computer languages to learn.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree html is easy, but my point still stands. This is a wiki, not a regular web page. As such if it is at all possible, the use of wiki syntax should be preferred. Wiki syntax has a way to do tables and it's also not that hard. But even with that being the case, I still think that file size and location has little use -- even if it's put on the kernel comparison page. Are you going to be able to add that information for all 20+ kernels listed on that page? And with the open source kernels, file size and location is basically up to the user/distro so there's no standard data to report. Jdm64 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really care about those kernels. They're useless, incidentally. Most of the information on this site is useless, just like any encyclopedia or the Internet in general. It's about learning, whether or not the information you learn can be put to use. That's kind of weird you came out of retirement just to edit war over this. It makes me wonder how you and Warren are related. But, if you want to be an asshole about it, fine. That article is a piece of shit anyway, so I might as well just put it back in.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Warren? What? I have no idea who he is -- never seen him before. Anyways, I have nothing more to say, as your replies have already discredited yourself. Jdm64 (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't call people names like "asshole", we have a policy against personal attacks. Doing this can lead to being blocked. Chillum 04:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and block me, asshole. Unlike with you, Wikipedia isn't my life. Someone needs to block you so you can go outside and get a girlfriend and a job.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will start you with 48 hours. When the block ends you will be expected to treat fellow Wikipedians with respect and refrain from abusive comments. No personal attacks is as policy, it is not optional. Chillum 15:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning on Kernel (computing)
At this point you've now performed four reversions on this article in a short period of time. This places you in violation of Wikipedia's Three-revert rule (3RR) policy -- further reversions on this page will result in your being blocked for disruptive behaviour.  Warren -talk- 07:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have given you a 12 hour block for edit warring/3RR violation. Tomorrow please come back and try not to edit war. If people resist your edits either seek consensus on the talk page or simply stop adding it. Chillum  07:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that right off your block you have made the same revert again. Take it to the talk page instead of reverting, blocks for edit warring will only get longer. Chillum  04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

harassing users
Please do not needlessly harass other users, as you did here:. Continuing to do so may get you blocked. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning, again
You're back? Well, allright... since you're already familiar with 3RR due to your previous blocks for edit-warring, I won't tell you what it is... but this is likely to be the only warning you'll get -- stop edit-warring at Mac OS X of your own volition, or be stopped with another block.  Warren -talk- 22:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Start menu. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  Tide  rolls  00:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for violating WP:3RR at Start menu. The block will expire in 72 hours. Please do not edit war after the block has expired. The edits in question are:. Chillum 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You were also edit warring at Mac OS X. See. Given this and your history with 3RR, I am changing the block duration to 1 week. Chillum 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you have felt the need to try and taunt me through e-mail, I have disabled you ability to send e-mails. Please do not turn a simple 3RR block into a more serious matter by e-mail trolling. Your e-mail: "You don't have to cry about it. I already have a mother. I don't need some loser whining to me about some worthless site." is hardly appropriate, and unlikely to be productive in the least. If you think this site is worthless then you should stop using it. If you are going to be abusing to others here then you will stop using it. Chillum 01:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a private e-mail. Obviously, you're too much of a coward to talk to me. I plan on stopping using this site after I'm done with you.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're kind of strict for a drug addict, you know.--K;;m5m k;;m5m (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you are insistent on turning a simple editorial dispute into a general social behavior problem I am removing your ability to edit your talk page for the duration of the block. Please understand that your editing privileges on Wikipedia extend to you only as far as you respect our policies. Specifically for you our polices on WP:Edit warring and WP:Personal attacks. Chillum 02:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

After a good night's sleep and reading this recent comment where you say that you are on Wikipedia to troll:. I have decided to make you block undetermined in length. When the protection of this page expires in one week you need only to make a promise to me to: Not edit war, not be abusive to other, and not have the intention of trolling while editing.

Once this promise has been made you will be unblocked and held to your promises. Chillum 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent action of evading your block by creating a new account to send 49 more abusive e-mail has led me to retract my offer of unblocking you based on a promise. Just so you know, with my e-mail program I can delete 2 or 50 e-mails from the same person with a single click, so quantity of e-mails are no going to make things worse for me. That whole e-mail account is a throwaway account anyways due to the high number of uncreative trolls around here. The decision to participate in block evasion leaves me little confidence in your word. I am considering this matter settled. Chillum 14:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that you had seven sleeper accounts? Yes, we are able to track those down before you use them. It is clear that my choice to make this block indefinite was correct. Please find a web site that is more accepting of trolling. Chillum 15:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)