Jump to content

User talk:Kungfuadam/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Congrats

Congratulations on your successful FRA. i think you'll make a good admin. see ya 'round the IRC's. Vulcanstar6 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

but its true!

but it's true about kennedy! it should really be on there, because its a really funny fact that not many people know. i swear on my life its true. you can verify it. for example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/programmes/letter_from_america/3167810.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.200.62 (talk • contribs)

Re: Question

That's absoultely fine! :) — FireFox • T [14:35, 2 April 2006]

Re: Signing your posts

ok thanks...

research in motion

adam - you may want to remove the last 2 edits by Nowa (who seems to have some legal experience) for the same reasons you removed the RIM edit on march 10th. This is a long story and this addition is only one small piece of hearsay.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.22.85 (talk • contribs)

I agree, I removed it.--Adam (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Adam and unsigned, I'm afraid I have not been a part of the previous discussion. Is there any paticular reason that you do not want more extensive background on the RIM NTP litigation in the article? As far as "hearsay" goes, please check the links provided for documentary support. --Nowa 16:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
hi nowa and adam, there are literally thousands of articles that I’ve read over the past 4 years on this topic. For every journalist that implicates RIM as arrogant, fraudulent or stubbornly stupid, there are just as many who characterize NTP as trolls, extortionists and skilled manipulators of the system. Doing a simple google search will yield this insight. However, I don’t believe it is the role of Wikipedia articles to reiterate such polarized views, especially when the real truth is buried deep in corporate and courtroom non-disclosure. Nowa, it is a slippery slope when you include the wittings of one newspaper. It’s an invitation for edits from all over the map. I believe the last paragraph covers the three main points of the topic and is sufficient – Rim lost in court – a settlement was reached – and the USPTO did a re-examination. On this basis I ask you Nowa to please reconsider and remove your edits. 70.29.22.85 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
May I remember everyone to review the policy on Neutral Point of View. This is an encyclopedia so we cannot bias. Just be careful and don't get into an edit war with each other.--Adam (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Adam and anonymous, Good point about reviewing NPOV policy. Also good point about there being thousands of articles relating to the case. That suggests that perhaps we should start a separate Wikipedia article on it. We could use the current longer version of the RIM patents section as a beginning stub. Others could add additional important information, such as the behavior of NTP, to flesh out the history.
Once the article was started, I would be agreeable to reduction of the patent section of the RIM article back to its shorter form. Comments? Builds?--Nowa 23:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Nowa that's a great idea!! what should it be called "RIM NTP Patent Dispute" ... I have no idea - you guys know better - i'm just a beginner. the link to it should be at the end of the litigation section in both NTP and RIM pages. i think many will contribute because its not on the corporate page. 70.29.22.85 01:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nowa, I will let you take care of that- I don't really know about the subject. I just became involved when I saw the article on Recent Changes. That is a good idea! Now- anonymous, can I suggest that you create an account for yourself? That way no one can see your IP and you can do things like create articles, watch pages etc.--Adam (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Nowa, Adam - Thanks, I've signed up as you can see. There is a sugestion on RIM talk that the NTP page and a link to it has been used for all the litigation information - I agree with this since there is much more to RIM than litigation and the page may get filled with patent stuff. Nowa, have you seen the links in [[1]], there is much more neutral reporting here than the Globe article you comment on. PDAgeek 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Kungfuadam, thanks for reverting vandalism to my user talk page! Cheers, Tangotango 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

board of biffo

You have put a deletion notice on the page I created for The Board of Biffo with the reason nn website. Please explain this reason to me, and also how I can improve the article. Russ 19:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently it was speedy deleted by someone else. Please refer to WP:WEB--Adam (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, my bad, it is was not. Please refer to the link I just gave. Also, I edited your post to make the link show up.--Adam (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the content of the page. It has been reported in one magazine only, and this probably doesn't count as notable content. Russ 19:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mello-Leitão

Thanks for editing M-L page. But the widely use plural of genus (when used in the zoological taxonomic sense) in "genera", not "genuses". Cheers, Vae victis. -- Vae victis 16:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Adam (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

blocking the article

(copied from Talk:Katie Holmes)

Shouldn't articles on the main page be blocked? So we would have avoided vandalism. Mr.K. 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We never want to block main page articles unless absolutely necessary. When articles are featured on the front page, they get a lot of improvement. There are many editors watching the featured articles and revert vandalism pretty soon after it happens.--Adam (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but those countering vandalism need to watch more carefully, some of the vandalism is getting overlooked because of the constant changes and, apparently, edit conflicts. --67.77.201.22 16:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

I wrote on my talk page. I don't think that asking someone to calm down and to stop being a WP:DICK can be considered to be a personal attack. Do you? The guy was starting problems over an issue that was resolved in December 2005, and insisting on going back to a vandalised version of an article, and generally being pretty silly about things. Asking someone to calm down and stop encouraging vandalism shouldn't be considered to be a personal attack, should it? I thought that personal attacks were supposed to be personal, and, secondly, attacking. It would also help if when you make warnings for you to link to what you are warning about, and why you think it is wrong. It doesn't really work if you don't tell us what you are accusing us of doing.

Thanks. 59.167.131.8 17:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert edits on talker? Do you disagree with them? Are you assuming bad faith? 59.167.131.8 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I felt there was a considerable amount of link spam, so I reverted back to the last version before you. My decision was not based on the reasons you stated.--Adam (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


RFA

I think Hoary (who was the one who added it with his AWB message) was trying to tell you to change his topic (but leave his image), because now it's just empty with his thing on the sidebar, or something like that. --Rory096 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

???????

Who are you and WHY are you marking my article for DELETION?

The article is written from a 3rd party and infotmative perspective.

This isn't a vanity article, it has nothing to do with me. My name is mentioned no where.

This isn't a commercial advertisement, this software is FREE and OPEN SOURCE.

This article gives FACTS about the application.

PLEASE STOP adding the DELETE header. This has been RESOLVED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhanks (talk • contribs)

I did not nominate the article for deletion. I was simply reverting the afd removal. The article must reach a concensus with the community, even if it is a second time.--Adam (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
According the the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise Audit Shell, this article doesn't have much of a chance of survival.--Adam (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

EAS Discussion

Adam,

I've added my comments about EAS. This isn't simply "Joe's Personal Editor" that only 2 people use. The reason Google doesn't know much about the search term "Enterprise Audit Shell" is because it was released about a week ago.

I've added links to the EAS Deletion Discussion showing the software announcement on the sudo mailing list itself, which clearly demonstrates the importance of EAS. The moderator of the sudo mailing list doesn't just approve random announcements.

Please understand that EAS is the NEW VERSION of the software Sudosh which is wide-spread and commonly used. The software has a strong background, but the only confusing aspect is that the new release has CHANGED NAMES.

Well, give it some time and then it will gain some notability and perhaps it will have a place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a platform in which to advertise products.--Adam (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations! Consensus having been reached, it is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an administrator on the English Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review the Administrators' reading list and the Administrators' how-to guide before using any of your shiny new buttons. :-) If you need assistance or advice, please feel free to request help from other administrators at the Administrator's Noticeboard and Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents, or to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay Talk • Contact 04:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Drink 'er up! _-M o P-_ 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations on your promotion! _-M o P-_ 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow, some nice champagne to go with my breakfast! Thank you very much!--The newest administrator on Wikipedia (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Congrats! What a day for you and good luck for the future! --Siva1979Talk to me 15:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, you sound like great admin/jungle adventurer material. Good luck in the future! --InShaneee 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
KillerChihuahua?!? 12:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Thanks for the help with the Manlius Pebble Hill entry

I'm the computer teacher there, and we seem to have a few students who have decided to have a little "fun" with Wikipedia now that they know that it exists and that anyone can edit it. Unfortunately, since they're not using registered accounts, we can't really catch the cretins. All we really have is the IP address, and that's usually the school's.

One of my student assistants told me that username of one of the vandals is also the IM screen name of a certain student, but we have no way to verify whether it's actually that person or someone impersonating him.

Once again, thanks for your help with reverting the entry to what it should be.

Keith13206 05:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. Normally we give more latitude to shared Ips (less likely to block)--Adam (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


about rv on South India

The anonymous editor simply removed stuff that should really not be there on a page describing the general area of South India, since more detailed information are present in each subregion's article page. Besides the economy section is disproportionately too huge. In this context, is it ok if I revert back your revert? --hydkat 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.--Adam (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Marquez

Man! Why'd you delete that shit. Andrew Marquez has ***** for less

Prince Sameth

You put the reason patent rubbish when you deleted my work. If you would so kindly tell me why then I will correct it. If the problem is it goes sideways for too long then I don't know how to fix it so could you please tell me how. Thank you for your time.

The article's text was patent nonsense, not the formatting. Don't put indents in your text and your text won't go clear to the other side.--Adam (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A Special Invitation

Hey, screw you Adam. Some of us bored non-Portuguese people need entertainment to fill the hours. Who the hell are you to tell me how I can and cannot do that? Go research the rape of nanjing or something, kung butt. Sincerely -Kung Fu Me P.S. If you actually know kung fu, disregard this message

Adam doesn't know kungfu but is nonetheless disregarding this message haha.--Adam (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Frankie Nicholas

Why did you deleate Frankie Nicholas. who are you to say he is not important? there are many people who want to learn more about this man.

We can't have articles on every person on the planet. Then we would have billions of articles. This a person that is not notable.--Adam (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

are u saying a dog [[5]] is is more notible than a person. if there were an article on every animal i think that would be significantly more than a billion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.107.227 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 April 2006

Ready for a Second Course?

Hey! I'm not finished with you Adam. Now that you admit you do not know Kung Fu, I may attack you with renewed fervor. This is a travesty! I want you to go back through your extensive Internet archives and paste that article you so callously rejected onto this message board so the world may see what brilliance has been denied by your nerdy little fingers! Yours truly, Kung Fu Me

Wow, nice for a laugh!!!--Adam (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem :). It would be nice if you edited once more in order to leave a note about your real opinion on the article though so that the edit fiends will not be encouraged.

Revert Mistake

No problem :). It would be nice though if you edited again in order to make a note about your true opinion on the article so that the edit fiends will not be encouraged.

=Axiom= 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As predicted, someone has indeed already taken your edit to be an intentional one and used it to further an edit war. Refer to the history of the gunpowder article to see for yourself. Please step up and enlighten the other editors on that article to the truth of your edit as you have done for me. Thank you in advance.

=Axiom= 02:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the article. Originally I interpreted your edit to be in bad faith, but then I realized that it wasn't, whether it is true or not. I prefer to stay out of this, because I don't know anything about the subject.--Adam (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kindly reveal your neutrality on the subject then because as I have said someone has already taken your edit to be opinionated. All I am asking is that you present the truth. Sincerely, =Axiom= 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page

Why can I not edit my own talk page? The history is there for those who want it; what is wrong with cleaning it up?? Silversnake020

You shouldn't cleanup brand new warnings.--Adam (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Some of those are a month old. - Silversnake020 02:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I care more about the ones that are half an hour old...--Adam (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Good is Good

Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 15:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Michael DeWitt"

Posso saber porque apagou a mensagem sobre Michael DeWitt ???

Apaguei a mensagem porque não pertence no "article space". The only content was "Michael Dewitt".--Adam (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted. pschemp | talk 01:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for your vote.

Hi, this is Matt Yeager. I wanted to thank you for your vote on my request for adminship. The count was something like was 14/20/5 when I decided to withdraw the request. My decision was based on the fact that there are enough things wasting people's time on the Internet that doomed RFA's shouldn't be kept up for voters to have to think about. Regardless of the rationale behind your vote, I hope you will read this note for an extended note and discussion on what will happen before I make another try at adminship (I didn't want to clog up your userpage with drivel that you might not be interested in reading). Thank you very, very much for your vote and your time and consideration of my credentials--regardless of whether you voted support, nuetral, or oppose. Happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for reverting and giving it some short term protection from wichever AOLer I managed to annoy. --GraemeL (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, Kungfuadam/Archive 3!
Thank you! ...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

 Thank you!
Hello Kungfuadam/Archive 3. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Thanks for reverting my userpage!

Much appreciated. -- gtdp (T)/(C) 22:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader

I was trying to put a merge template on. There is no need for 2 pages about Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Dudtz 4/11/06 8:29 PM EST

please state your intentions in the edit summary because it looks like vandalism.--Adam (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If I was a Vandal I would put stupid info on. Dudtz 4/11/06 8:34 PM EST

Dalip Singh Vandalism

Racist wrestling fans are vandaling the Dalip SIngh webpage, I get all my facts from using google, and reading online articles, and stupid western people are making dumb comments, and untrue information.

It's not Wikipedia's policy to keep pages protected forever.--A Stupid American western person (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I just took a semi-protection off. It was semi-protected for more than four days. Semi protection is not used to handle content disputes, it is used to stop vandalism. Check WP:Vandalism, and I quote Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding an opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. I will watch the page and if there is any vandalism out of the ordinary, I will protect.--Adam (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Graphic Standards Manual and whether to speedy

I notice that you removed the speedy deletion tag from Graphic Standards Manual saying that "I don't want to speedy delete because so many pages link here" - the only reason that lots of pages appeared to link there is that GSM was trying to be a redirect to two different places. I've fixed that by disambiguating, so if you were only keeping it because of the apparent large number of links maybe it's not worth keeping. -- AJR | Talk 11:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that you have fixed it, far less pages link to this article. I have put a proposed deletion tag which will give the editors five days to expand it, otherwise it will be gone then.--Adam (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Move

Please perform your merge on One shot (comic), it is ready for you.--Adam (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored the page because I am not sure what needs to be done here- there is a disambiguation page. I will let a more experienced admin take care of this.--Adam (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, no, that was a history merge that was required. A user had copied the contents of One-shot to One shot (comic), and turned One-shot into a redirect to One shot. See the One-shot history for what I mean. The right thing to do is merge the history of the old page into the new one, for reasons of clarity and GDFL etc. Seems we've lost the (comic) c/p move now (which isn't the end of the world), so I might just move the dab over it and revert the redirect. If you're bored at some point, bug an old-time admin into explaining it to you. --zippedmartin 21:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting me in my RfA. I really didn't think people appreciate my work here that much, but it's nice to see you do: my Request was closed with 66 supports and 4 opposes. I'll do my best not to turn your confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. --Dijxtra 11:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Permanent block template

It's {{vpblock}} (which stands for vandalism, permanent block, I think) Sceptre (Talk) 17:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Spokane "Neighborhoods" entry

This section was, at one point, fairly accurate. It's been replaced, repeatedly, by nonsense. Nothing in the section is verifiable; it's entirely mis-information and opion. I'd recommend removing it. As an information source, it's an embarrasment.

Please tell me the exact name of the article so I can take a look at it.--Adam (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I found it by your contributions. Don't blank the neighborhood information. Please discuss your intentions on the talk page of the article. There is already a discussion on neighborhoods.--Adam (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

help!

User:Mir Harven has made two personal attacks on me, he said that I'm in a sick state of mind, and that I live entrapped in my own perverted mind here. He was also highly disrespectfull towards my story about the brutal murder of my gradfather in WWII by the fascists. These are probably the worst things anyone has ever said to me... Plase block him or something... --serbiana - talk 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have given him a cooling down period. Hopefully he will be nicer when he comes back.--Adam (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Hola, Kungfuadam

I see that the Flattbush band article discussion page was yet again vandalized by randirice. I don't like what is there in my name, because of the fact that randirice makes statements and then erases his own statements among vandalizing the ones I and others have made as well. So, unfortunatly, it looks as if I'm talking to myself there...Can I get some kind of a summery of what they did this time and to which post of mine they picked this time to vandalize? I thank you for your honest efforts.

truly yours best wishes Stabinator 19:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your recent statements because they are inflammatory. Please remain civil. I don't see where this user vandalized the talk page. The user blanked the article page which already has been reverted.--Adam (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh wow.again?...Oh, I posted my message to you onto the page there. I wanted to let everyone know what they (flattbush ) are doing to their own wikipedia article page. Yeah, Randirice makes statements and then erases his own statements among vandalizing the ones I and others have made. It looks as if I'm talking to myself on the discussion page. Vandalizing what has been checked by others as the truth is their main goal, as they are Communists.Since they have blanked out the article and discussion page over 20 times, maybe they should get banned from wikipedia.Stabinator 19:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

PIGUI deletion contested

G'day, please see PIGUI talk page for protest against deletion of PIGUI --Webaware 22:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Demented Wildlife

Why did you delete the Demented Wildlife page? If you doubt its existence, then I can prove you wrong. Myself, Sam Brinton, and my colleague, Quin Parthasararthy, have a date planned in mid-June for a concert at the local school, Frost Middle School.

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 86.128.222.36 12:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Chanlord

Just a notice; User:Chanlоrd was an imposter of User:Chanlord. — Deckiller 13:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know the other user, but their actions got them blocked anyhow.--Adam (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WISE TV

I am not vandalizing the WISE TV page. I worked there for 16 years and many of the facts are incorrect. Also the Kitco contribution has very little to do with the stations history. Do you want to be accurate in your assesment or not.

You should use edit summaries because we have no idea what you are doing.--Adam (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I am new at this so you'll have to forgive me for not really knowing what I am doing here.

No problem, happy editing.--Adam (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your help in fighting vandalism! Dragonbones 14:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


Username blocks

Hi Kungfuadam. I just saw you blocked a user with an inapproprite username that was called User:◊. Well, I think the same person is making more accounts, I think he also made:

I think these might also qualify for the same block. Moe ε 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

And User:¯ Moe ε 22:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

All blocked, thanks Moe.--Adam (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Again

Sorry to disturb you again but I think he returned again, User:•. Moe ε 23:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I got that one too.--Adam (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Account blocks

Greetings, I've been reviewing the Category:Requests_for_unblock and made a comment or two on some of the blocked users pages but I didn't fully understand why User:• was blocked, particularly given what is shown on his/her talk page... why is that user blocked? Netscott 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, good morning. The user is blocked, because this is a string of account creations with Greek and other mathematical symbols. Given this, you have to wonder if the intentions are good.--Adam (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That's understandable, I actually wondered as much as well.. but I did notice that this particular user's first edits were of a mathematical nature which corresponded well with their name... maybe that person chose to register their name at an inopportune moment? Also I thought that the point about the several other single character names was well made. Netscott 11:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense articles

goodevening, whats the deffinition of Nonsense?

hey dude, you've deleted some of my articals because they're "nonsense" so, whats nonsense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Itwontbelong89 (talk • contribs) .

Please refer to WP:PN for the definition of nonsense with respect to patent nonsense.--Adam (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking, Vandals

From looking at your talk page above, you're probably right about the other names. Happy to have been of service regarding vandals. Such a pity that they are AOL based... I'm a bit of a vandal fighter from having worked on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and appreciate a good blocking when a vandal merits it, but we can get no joy from AOL vandals! :-( Netscott 12:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted article

Yesterday, you deleted Avila (journalist) after it was nominated for deletion. The article is back in full. How do we handle this? Thanks. SDC 12:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It fell under speedy criteria of patent nonsense yesterday. Now it falls under speedy deletion criteria of reposted content. It has been deleted.--Adam (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for unblocking me. I couldn't help but admire your signature and was wondering if there was a special WikiTrick I could employ so that when I sign my signature it will automatically make it how I want it (similar to yours)? Is there a wikipedia tutorial you can send me so that I might learn to make my own? Thanks again! • Talk 14:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. Now about the wiki signature, it is pretty easy, if you know basic wiki coding. In your preferences, click raw signature. Then, put in the coding for what you want your signature to look like. My signature is this: [[User:Kungfuadam|Adam]] [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px|<nowiki>]] (talk)</nowiki> in raw code.--Adam (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Master Jay's RfA

Hey Adam, thank you for your support at my recent RfA. If you have any concerns, feel free to post them here. Thanks --Jay(Reply) 00:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi, I listed a 3RRvio, but no one replied. Would you be able to do the block? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 03:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandal block assist

That didn't take long! ;-) Netscott 03:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop it!

Hello. I am distressed that you are deleting my post without any reasearch. please look at my other posts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Javabrain (talk • contribs)

Article name? I deleted about 80 articles today.--Adam (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Hubbard Article Edits

Hello - I've recently undone the changes you made to Conrad Hubbard - while I believe you may have had a complaint about the article, the information provided is true, accurate, and relevant. I can understand why you would make the changes to the article, but I believe your decision to be incorrect. My work is cited, factual, and contains no original research, complying with Wikipedia's policies on the matter. If you would like me to cite more thoroughly or if you need clarification on any of the points in question, I can be contacted at sally.winnfield at gmail.com. Conversely, if you feel that your edits need to stay you can also contact me and explain your position. Perhaps there are some details I'm not aware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by sally.winnfield (talk • contribs)

When checking the article history, I find that I have never edited this article. I think you've got the wrong person.--Adam (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Eternal Ace

I'd like to know why exactly my article was deleted, the "Eternal Ace" article

It's a non-notable vanity page. A good indicator is when the band's webpage is on myspace...--Adam (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism" accusations

Hello:

I'm Jason Lynn, at email redacted.

I'm perplexed by the claim that I have "vandalized" any pages of your enclopedia, as all I do is read it: I have never once added any writings nor commented, nor had any activity other than mere perursal.

Therefore, I request that these silly and mean warnings be stopped.

JL

You are an AOL member which means your computer address can change. For that reason, I recommend you make a Wikipedia account to avoid these irrelavent messages. Someone with your IP vandalized.--Adam (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

Hi - At 00:02, 19 April 2006 I (AYArktos) unblocked #143290 (not a sock puppet as far as I am aware). You had blocked him as a sock puppet.If you have any evidence of his sock puppetry please make it clear. I had been watching his user page and there were no warnings of sock puppetry.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What was the user name blocked?--Adam (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a mistake, I associated him with a "judge sockpuppet" problem we had going on at the same time. I apologized to the user :( accept my apologies.--Adam (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fixed.--Adam (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks. For great justice. 00:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for the kind words at my RfA. Do you have suggestions as to what added experience would convince you to support next time around, if there is one? I've thought wading into conflicted, edit war-prone articles and helping to bring about consensus and peace there was such involvement, but it appears many users disagree. Can you help me understand? --CTSWyneken 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Some users think you need more participation in the Wikipedia community, such as projects and things. Also, your editing of articles is in a very narrow subject. This is fine, I concentrate on articles that interest me. However, being an admin requires wider knowledge of the community. It is more than being an editor. An admin needs to have knowledge of the community and policies. I think more interactions in these areas would help you next time around. Also many of the voters on your rfa believe that you push point of view, which is healthy, but an adminstrator must have a neutral point of view, regardless of personal beliefs. --Adam (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Imagem para Frankenstein

Kung,

Colocamos uma imagem do Frankenstein na wiki lusófona. Tem como carregares para o verbete em inglês?

André Koehne Favor confire seu discussão na wiki lusófona. Repostarei aí.--Adam (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Greenpoint, Brooklyn

Please do not remove comments on the Greenpoint, Brooklyn discussion page. I have just resoted the deleted comments from the sections area. Thank you.162.83.236.121 19:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summaries were misleading, and you have been blocked for 48 hours. I was restoring content that you blanked.--Adam (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


Reverting

Be a little more careful when reflex reverting. My edits to Chile were not vandalism. —Cantus…☎ 00:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I am sorry.--Adam (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Xavier Douglas Quaid

why did you delete our page on Xvier Douglas Quaid!! You dont know who he is and what he has done for humanity. You have no right to do that.

User:Ruminations of a Racial Realist

Hello -- this user has just emailed me asking why he was blocked, and suggesting that if someone found his username offensive he would be happy to change it. He said he had been having trouble getting in touch with you. In the block log, your reason for blocking was that it was a vandalism only account, and that you weren't sure about the name. I can understand the name part, but two edits to add a link to his blog and one polite comment on a talk page isn't really vandalism of the sort that ought to get someone blocked without any kind of warning, forever. Were it me, I would have warned him about adding his blog to articles and maybe asked him to reconsider his name. I won't lift the block, but I am asking that you reconsider it, at least long enough to explain why you blocked him indefinitely. Thanks. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of User:Ruminations of a Racial Realist

Hello Kungfudam. I am concerned about your block of User:Ruminations of a Racial Realist. I think an indefinite block was not the right approach because (1) The user's edits are not obviously vandalism. The user made one edit to an article talk page, then 2 edits to add a link to external website to articles. At worst the links were not significant enough for inclusion, but that is a content issue, not vandalism. (2) I see no record you provided the user with any warnings prior to the block. (3) You state you have a concern about the user's username, but you did not contact them to ask them what the name means before you took action on your concen. (4) Even when you blocked the user, you did not leave any justification for it on their talk page. Leaving a note explaining your actions is common courtesy to the blocked user, and also to others such as myself who come by to try to understand the situation. Based on what I can see so far, I believe the block should be completely removed. I look forward to your thoughts. Best, Johntex\talk 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi -- I looked into it and unblocked her, just FYI, I think it was clearly just a mistake. Let me know if for some reason it was not. I don't think she's a vandal, but I understand that with a username like that (and no user page) it is easy to be suspicious. --Fastfission 02:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry, I was out. Unblocking is fine. I felt that the username was inappropriate paired with the edits that were there, that there was some bad faith there. Adam needs to assume good faith. Happy editing.--Adam (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

YanMill

Hi Adam- if you could check out this incident report and share your experiences or whatever with this set of socks that would be great . . . This user is getting really out of hand, and i'm not quite sure what to do about it, as it's almost all throw-away socks . . . Any thoughts? --Heah? 06:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:146.145.148.209

I blocked for 24h you blocked for a week, appears to be a blank-o-bot, do you want me to reset block to a week? -- Tawker 14:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There was another admin that also blocked for a week. The user was blocked 48 hours before. I think a week is ok.--Adam (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Carroll Broadcasting Company

Hi. You just removed a speedy tag I added to Carroll Broadcasting Company saying the author needs time to improve it - the article was written 3 months ago and the author hasn't made any edits for 2 months. Do you really think the article will get improved? Even if it is, it will be a complete rewrite. --Tango 17:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree and I deleted the article.--Adam (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Cheers. --Tango 17:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was Lars Kestner article deleted?

I'm a newer editor and might be missing something, but I dont' understand why the Kestner page was deleted.

The information given is not notable. I have restored it so you can expand upon the article. Please expand it because someone else might delete it.--Adam (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Afd

Yeah, I had reported it on the AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Fake Votes on Afd. It was this IP,68.48.32.65 ,that did it.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am blocking all of them as we speak.--Adam (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Martial Law - All Apologies

Please accept my apologies. I meant no harm to you or this website. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.80.89.56 (talk • contribs)

Please be aware that when you or the autoblocker targets "common" proxy numbers, you are unlikely to block your target and are very likely to block innocent users who are randomly assigned the number by AOL or other providers. I am often impacted by this problem. Please see User:WBardwin/AOL Block Collection. I would appreciate a prompt release of this block. Thanks. WBardwin 04:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

You were blocked by Kungfuadam for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "CalifornianCroat". The reason given for CalifornianCroat's block is: "vandalism only account"." Your IP address is 207.200.116.137.

Hi, that auto block has been lifted.--Adam (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you -- appreciate the prompt attention. WBardwin 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in, but please be careful when you block an IP to ensure that it's not within the range used by AOL. If it is, we can really only block those IP's for very short times -- meaning no more than 15 minutes at a time, generally. This is because AOL recycles its IP's virtually every time someone loads up a new page. A retarded system to be sure, but it's what they use just the same. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 04:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The user that was blocked was an actual username- CalifornianCroat. He happened to be using AOL. I had no idea of his IP address until this autoblock came up.--Adam (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Englishmuffinsattack

I did an indefinite block on that account, all it's contribs are vandalism. The block needs to be indefinite and yours was temporary. If you don't mind you or I can unblock then block indefinite.--Dakota ~ 04:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the block conflict and I took care of it. Happy editing!--Adam (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Dakota ~ 04:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Request 2

Hi Kungfuadam,

Would you be able to block someone for violation of the 3RR for me? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 04:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please post on 3RR page. I am going to bed. It is 1 AM here.--Adam (talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. —Khoikhoi 04:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dark Lord's RfA

Your vote says support but its in the oppose section. Clarification would be appreciated. (Also, while I'm here, you may want to read what WP:SIG says about images in signatures). JoshuaZ 14:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

your comment

it is not only English encyclopedia. There are a lot of pages in Bulgarian here. I just wanted to enter the biogrphy of a BULGARIAN physicist on his maternal language. I will find a way to do it if there are other pages in Bulgarian, so it is possible.

The proper place to put Bulgarian is at [6], not [7]. I, for one don't read a word of Bulgarian.--Adam (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Cybermohalla

comrade, why are my posts getting deleted? login cybermohalla. check the logs for nangla maanchhi. thanks.

They are deleted according to Wikipedia's Speedy Deletion Policy--Adam (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Nangla Maanchhi

Hi

Sorry about the incomplete msg before.

It seems the entry is a biographical account.

Please see http://nangla.freeflux.net

and would be great if it doesnt get deleted!!

best shveta

Cybermohalla 22 april

The problem is that the person is non-notable. One indicator is that the source is a blog. I have a blog about myself, but there is no article about me on Wikipedia.--Adam (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User block on anon IP

That user (or someone operating in the same way) had been repeatedly inserting links to a blog in several articles, where they weren't appropriate. Rich Farmbrough 12:19 22 April 2006 (UTC).

That's why I blocked the user, if we are talking about the same user.--Adam (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Adam, wrong talk page! Rich Farmbrough 15:49 22 April 2006 (UTC).

Thanks

Edits to Bernard Rudofsky Article

Hey,

I wasn't trying to "deliberately introduce incorrect information" to the Bernard Rudofksy article. It's hard to see how you could think I was trying to do that, since all I did was correct some minor grammatical mistakes and try and make the prose of the article a little bit easier to read.

Anyway, since you appear to want to protect your grammatical mistakes and lumbering prose at all costs, I'll just leave it as is. But please don't accuse me of doing something I couldn't possibly be reasonably thought to be doing. (If you bother to look at my edits, you'll see that I didn't add any additional information whatsoever.)

That said, I like your article. I too am a big fan of Rudofksy and think his work deserves to continue to be read.

Charles

Zarbon

You blocked Zarbon on the 19th for 3RR. He is currently using 207.38.253.161 to get around the block and continue to edit articles. He has a tremendous amount of sockpuppet IPs that he cycles through, but last time he was blocked, restarting the block once on his main user name got him to accept it. Could you restart it, please? Hopefully that will be enough for this time, too, although I'm beginning to doubt it. Kafziel 05:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No reply necessary,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting my RfA. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate.--Rockero 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense that I am not causing

Hi,

I just clicked on my "new messages" link, and found out that I had vandalized at least 10 times in the past few months. This is completely untrue, because I dont even have a acccount to edit pages, so I dont know what this about. I have a virus, and im thinking that maybe someone is using my AOL IP adress to vandalize pages on wikipedia. I'm sorry for any inconvinence on this site, but I just want to let you know that its NOT me. Thanks!

You don't keep the same AOL IP address. Sometimes your AOL IP address even rotates during the same web session. The way to avoid irrelavant messages is to create an account.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi, IP addresses on AOL are not static, that is, they bounce from AOL user to AOL user. So what you are seeing are warnings that were given to other AOL users. One way to avoid this is to register an account. I hope that this clarifies things. JoshuaZ 22:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for clarifying. I actually thought it was someone who was using my computer to make these ridicious remarks on pages!

Thanks, in a sense

Thanks for un-blanking my user talk page; just so you know, the blanking was done by me, I just wasn't logged in. Still, it's good to know someone's paying attention. Thunderbunny 05:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

ickle pickle

Ahhhh, if you call pickled cucumbers 'pickle', what do you call other pickles? Cokehabit 15:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why have you reverted it to pickled cucumber? There are hundreds of pickled products only the US knows pickled cucumbers as "pickle". Please revert it to the page beforehand

There already is a disambiguation page. In the US, other pickled products are known as pickled (the item that is pickled). We never say pickled cucumbers. No US user will search for pickle by typing in pickled cumcumber because it just isn't known as such. A page exists for the other uses of pickle at pickle (disambiguation) and a template for this is on the Pickled cucumber page.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Adam, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Bill Gates vandal

He blanked it!!! - CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have semi protected it. Thanks!--Kungfu Adam (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting at my RFA. Even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Thanks for voting on my RfA

Thanks so much for voting!
Thanks so much for voting on my request for adminship. I have decided to withdraw my nomination as it seems that consensus will not be reached. If you voted in support, thanks for putting your trust in me to be a good admin. If you voted in opposition, thank you as well for your criticism as it will only help me be a better Wikipedian and perhaps help if/when I apply for adminship again sometime in the future.

--Mets501talk • contribs 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Spam in Portugal

Why did you removed the IP address I reported for spam without blocking? An address from the same range had been blocked previously for adding the same links and it will continue adding them, everyday I clean spam from the article. Could you explain me the reason of not blocking it? Afonso Silva 12:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Desculpe, eu não vi que teve outros IP envolvidos. O IP somente fez duas mudanças naquela hora, e não é sufficiente bloquear.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Eu não percebo ainda muito bem os processos dos administradores, mas é evidente que este novo IP, que pertence à gama do que tinha sido bloqueado anteriormente (e isso estava referido na minha queixa), está a continuar o trabalho de colocar spam, provavelmente até pertence ao mesmo utilizador. Além disso já tinha sido colocado na página de conversação dele o aviso de que não é correcto adicionar spam na wikipedia e mesmo assim ele continuou, é só por isto, não é nada de grave, mas é chato ter que remover o mesmo spam todos os dias e a minha experiência diz-me que ele não vai parar, a menos que seja bloqueado. Afonso Silva 13:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Faz duas horas que esse IP não colocou spam. O artigo de Portugal estará no meu watchlist, e se eu ver mais spam igual esse tipo o usuário será bloqueado. Infelizmente a policia é que bloquear (IPs principalmente) é prevenção e não castigo.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Hey kungfuadam. Thanks for your support, and kind words on my RFA. Unfortunately, I wasn't promoted this time, but it was a valuable learning experience for me. You've been a good mentor for me on IRC, and on wikipedia, and hopefully in a couple months I'll be successful. As always, if you ever need anything, holler at ya boy. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia.

Hi, Kungfuadam. It's me Daniel5127. What kinds of advertisement is not allowed in Wikipedia? Some of them advertises something in Wikipedia. I think that Advertisement is also not allowed in Sandbox. For Sandbox, Everyone Can add anything whatever thay want. So, What kind of article must not be in Wikipedia? Please, Send me Message so that I could read your response. Daniel5127, 02:58, 29 April 2006(UTC)

Blocked User:Regional Pop?

Hi Kungfuadam. You indefinately blocked User:Regional Pop for what seems to be trivial vandalism. Isn't that a bit harsh? I have a mind to undo the block, so I'm curious if there's anything that's not readily apparent. Thanks. ~MDD4696 03:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You can undo the block if you would like. The account was created for vandalism only. --Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Help from a native English speaker

Hi there, I see you are a native speaker of English language and I would like to ask you to help us make a decision about a name of an article. If you wish to help, could you join the discussion here? --Dijxtra 13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 NFL Draft

I removed the semi-protection from this page. Reviewing the edits, some of the edits were from IPs and they were helpful edits. Just keep the page on your watchlist and revert the vandalism. Thanks. Pepsidrinka 22:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Vandalizing

I haven't been on Wilkipedia before today, I just created my username and it says that I'm blocked from editing stuff! I haven't vandalized anything, I'm not the kind of person to do that. Why is it saying that I did?

It may be an autoblock. Please include the exact message you received when you saw that you were blocked.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

KKK

Why would you revert my edit to the article? The KKK is an anti-Catholic organization. 75.3.4.54 03:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it was my mistake.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

U did it

I was patrolling thru orang0tan and welcoming the newbie.. After that, i found it deleted by u, thanx

Tux the penguin 12:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this "newbie" was created to make vandalistic pages (probably about 20 vandalism pages) This "newbie" knows what he has been doing and has been blocked indefintely.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology

My brother recently vandilized your, and many other pages on wikipedia, and i am very very sorry for his immature behaviour. I hope there are no hard feelings :)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kungfuadam/Archive_3&oldid=1082559379"