User talk:Adrian~enwiki

See Also: User talk:Adrian/Messages from Earth (and other archived stuff) (archive 1, msg's 1-100) As well as: User talk:Adrian/intersections in realtime (and other dangers) (archive 2, 100-180) I post replies here, unless I don't. User:Adrian welcomes reader replies, but reserves the right to edit submissions for libel and length. User:Adrian is a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgements About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are In Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They are Deletionist. AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD hello me. A freshly archived user_talk page always looks lonely without a post :( I love the smell of fresh archival at 0'dark-30 :) —— User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-01-08 12:21Z Can't have you talking to yourself I mean, people might think you were some kind of crazy person! Hope you had a good Christmas and NY. Thought I'd bring the following rather fun RfA to your attention: ProtectionBot. As implied by the title this is to be Wiki's first AdminBot. Amusing opposes based on robots taking over the world aside, one of the big stumbling blocks is the refusal to release the code as it might fall into the hands of Vandals who could design some horrific VandalBot vs. Wiki's general policy of releasing such things. Thought the debate might be of interest to you- net security and all... 17:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WJBscribe (talk • contribs) 2007-01-08 09:50:04 (UTC) Thanks for the notice. I actioned that, then was gonna reverse myself after seeing new data, but it'd all become moot by then :Z —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-01-15 23:22Z O_o Adrian! Good luck and all! !!!65.13.3.52 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Thanks! —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-01-15 23:20Z Thanks I answered you on my talk page. Shaundakulbara 03:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) unregistered IPs in AFD I removed your strikethrough of an IP's vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexy Losers. You're wrong, IP's do count, especially if they give a valid keep rationale. In any case, this is not your decision to make; the closing admin will weigh everything, and you certainly don't need to remind the admin how to weigh an IP's contribution. The only sensible thing to add can be an {{spa}} template sometimes, but if an IP has a long editing history here and no significant history of vandalism, then they are absolutely welcome to participate in AFD. Please do not tell them that they can't, this is against the spirit of WP:BITE. Thanks in advance, — coelacan talk — 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Appropriate action taken. (Reply @ User talk:Coelacan) —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-01-26 06:22Z I just wonder what you expect to accomplish. You're an experienced enough user to know it's not a vote, and also to know that a "keep" or "delete" without any rationale basically weighs for nothing, whether it's an unregistered IP or an admin. It just seems you're bringing an unnecessarily contentious tone to the AFD, and I'm not the only one to voice that concern. — coelacan talk — 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Anyway, sorry for being a jerk about this. I still want to communicate the spirit of what I've said, but I really think I came off too strongly. Have some salted popcorn with my comments. — coelacan talk — 06:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Replied on user_talk page. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-01-26 07:11Z Righto. Thanks for your replies. For what it's worth, your tone did not give me any indication of grumpiness or anything like that. I thought you were quite cordial. But... =) maybe I'm just desensitized from the venom I receive here (and decorate my user page with). I won myself a Penny Arcade reference last night: User talk:CyberAnth/Deletion Talk#Take a look at this! Later, — coelacan talk — 07:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Answered on user_talk. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-01-26 10:06Z Image:Fist_to_the_head!.jpg listed for deletion An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fist_to_the_head!.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU≈talk 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I am at a loss to understand the rationale for this photo's deletion and have strongly oppposed. WJBscribe 01:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your support. I've actioned this. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-01-31 08:06Z Closing AfDs Non-administrators may not close AfDs unless before the five day mark unless it is a painfully obvious snow-ball clause-type situation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu does not yet meet that standard. Additionally, your use of rollback-type tools in reverting your inappropriate close without comment was in itself inappropriate. Please be more careful and courteous when dealing with other folks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Additionally, your warnings to users 80.154.39.13 and 80.154.33.243 were very inappropriate, and I have deleted them. To warn a user for 3RR when you yourself have made the improper reversions (without comment) displays a lack of appreciation of proper process. Again, please be more careful. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I have denied and removed your requests for page protection for the articles, per the reasoning above. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Your actions in support of an out-of-process AfD are themselves out-of-process. No action you have taken here is supported by policy. Additionally, your deletion of qualified warnings to a user clearly involved in gaming the system is not appropriate. Please take more time to consider your actions in the future. I'm confident you mean well, but you're simply not correct on a number of levels, and are oddly passionate about it, to the point of lacking a NPOV. You need to recuse yourself from this issue until it can be properly arbitrated. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 10:29ZL I am surprised by the fact that you have reverted Adrian's actions. Surely the proper approach for disputing an AfD close (even by a non-admin) is WP:DRV. Whether or not he was right to be bold here can be addressed there. WjBscribe 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC) This assesment is incorrect. Disputed AfDs should only be closed by admins, and administrative decisions take precedence. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC) This AfD was not disputed by any member of the Wikipedia community, nor could it be disputed, since it was not valid to begin with. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 10:41Z Also, I am going to ask other admins to take a look at this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC) That makes two of us. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 10:41Z Jeffrey O. Gustafson has raised the issue at WP:ANI. I have posted my thoughts on the matter. WjBscribe 10:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Re: IP AfD noms By the way I should say I don't entirely agree with your close (though my reasons have nothing to do whether you're an admin or not). WP:AFD does not say IPs are forbidden to nominate articles for deletion(or that they 'lack standing'), it says: "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages ". Once the AfD page is created, there is nothing to stop IPs from contributing and if properly expressed their views should be as valid as anyone else's. So I don't think all delete !votes are by IPs is a valid close rationale. The opinion: "You can't write an article based on a bunch of self-published fan sites. Once you remove the unreliables sources, your simply won't have enough verifiable information to establish notablility. Come back after somebody has written a biography of the fellow. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan page." seems to be more than a vote and takes account of the relevant policies, although the user may be incorrect. WjBscribe 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you for having the kindness to be candid about your opinion. I still believe I acted appropriately -- if an anonymous editor nominated an article with a well-reasoned rationale, I wouldn't close it out-of-hand. However, in the face of multiple anons with a suspicious familiarity in re. Wikipedia, the decision is clear to me, though I respect your opinion. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-12 11:26Z I think you acted appropriately as well - especially in hindsight considering the AfD was started by an open-proxy IP editor who was vote-stacking with other open-proxy IP's and made reference to being Choronzon. Based on some inside information, I am 99% sure the open proxy editor is a user who was banned for running multiple socks. Also, there is quite a precedent set for non-admins closing AfD's [1] - there needs to be a clarification on policy one way or another.- WeniWidiWiki 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Ebony Anpu AfD Hello. You recently commented and/or voted on the AfD for the Ebony Anpu article here. FYI, the AfD has been reset because the discussion was not about the merits of the article, but instead about procedural issues. You are welcome to leave a new comment about whether or not the article should be included here, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebony Anpu. In order to be as fair as possible to the article's creators and those who feel it should be deleted, all comments about Wikipedia deletion procedure as it relates to this specific AfD are being directed to the AfD's talk page, here. Thanks for your time, and sorry for the wikispam. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Appropriate action taken. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-20 00:03Z Speedy tagging I'll try to avoid being overzealous in tagging articles. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for your understanding! :) —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-20 00:02Z AfD Ebony Anpu Hi there, some time ago you commented on AfD Ebony Anpu. I have opened a DRV on the page because of strange admin behavior. Any input would be appreciated. An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ebony Anpu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Captain Barrett 20:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Appropriate action taken. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-20 00:03Z Any Chance at getting Ebony Anpu unprotected, ya think? Better data has become available and a lot of time has passed? 76.102.2.234 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC) RfC Re: [2]. Adrian, you do realise Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson is an old RfC from about a year ago? If you're planning on helping Captainbarrett start an RfC on his recent actions it would need a fresh RfC to be created at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2. The appropriate template to base it on is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin. WjBscribe 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC) I noticed that as soon as he directed my attention to it, and advised him appropriately. Thanks :) —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-22 02:09Z Open proxies Hi Adrian, I see that you're listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/verified users. Could you have a look over this exchange I had with Nlu? Proxy block Hi, you've blocked 80.42.49.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as a suspected open proxy. The other day I had to have an autoblock lifted as a result of this. As far as I understand the term, the IP address in question is not an open proxy. As WHOIS makes clear, the IP address belongs to "Tiscali UK Limited" (A UK home internet provider) and as such will be used by a sizeable number of UK contributors. An indef block of this account (from which there have only been 2 instances of vandalism) seems counterproductive in that it prevents quite a lot of UK internet users from modifying Wikipedia. Could you reconsider the indef block of this IP? WjBscribe 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Remember that open proxies can also exist as a result of user configurations, not just ISP configurations. For example, if a person who uses Tor uses his home IP as a Tor proxy, in effect, it will be an open proxy. The reason why the block was put in place in the first place was that an anonymous IP-hopping vandal used it. I'll lift it, but please send something to the ISP to ask them to track the situation. --Nlu (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Actually, I see that Persian Poet Gal (talk · contribs) had already configured to allow registered users to edit. With that being the case, I don't think a modification is necessary. Again, I'd appreciate it if you contact the ISP. If they'll do something about it I'll consider lifting it. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand enough about open proxies to send something to the ISP that would be coherent, and definitely not to answer any questions they might ask in response, sorry. WjBscribe 17:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Just wanted to know if indef blocking IP accounts on this basis is supported by policy. I confess I know little about open proxies so wanted to defer to someone with expertise in the matter, especially when I saw Nlu wasn't on the verified user list. Cheers, WjBscribe 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 80.42.49.227 is verifiably a home dynamic DSL IP, and not currently running an open proxy as of Fri Feb 23 16:59:31 EST 2007. Based on the foregoing, and the stated block terms of "(anon. only, account creation blocked, noautoblock) with an expiry time of indefinite (suspected open proxy but registered/logged in users are allowed to edit)", this block should be lifted. My reading of policy infers that proxy blocks are for the life of the proxy, regardless of the type of system in question. When it ceases to be a proxy, it should cease to be blocked. For practical purposes, blocks are against IP's rather than against specific machines, so when a machine gets a new IP, the previously blocked IP is de facto no longer an open proxy. The metapolicy on open proxies affirms this reading, stating: "Non-static IPs or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP is likely to be transferred, the open proxy is likely to be closed, or the IP is likely to be re-assigned dynamically." dhcpd defaults the lease length for a given IP to one day. Many DSL and cable providers use "sticky" dhcp, which means that clients will continue to receive the same IP when they renew under many but not all circumstances. An informed blocking policy would then be for a length of at least one day but no more than seven days. Ultimately, when blocking a nominally dynamic IP, the blocking admin should take responsibility for ensuring that the benefit to the project outweighs potential harm, and for re-checking (or having re-checked) the proxy status of the IP if the block is for any substantial ( > 3 days ) length of time. Hope this helps :) —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-23 22:11Z It does. But where should I take this next? Is WP:PROXY's talkpage the best forum or should I go to WP:ANI or is there a specific admin you recommend my talking to? Cheers, WjBscribe 00:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Appropriate action taken. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-25 02:59Z Your sig Would you be so kind as to fix your sig please; It breaches our sig policy (see here). Thanks in advance Glen 11:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Keen attention to detail ;) Your link is to a guideline, not a policy. If you search my talk archives, you'll find that none of the issues raised by the guideline apply to my particular .sig. In summary, it's protected, and never changes, so it constitutes no drain on resources. Thank you for your interest in maintaining a more efficient Wikipedia :) —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:19Z The guideline is very clear (you rarely see use of the word "forbidden" anywhere here). Just quickly though, your statement above is inaccurate re the concerns raised in the guideline - WP:SIG states: “ Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as User:Name/sig, for example) are forbidden, because the developers have determined them to be an unnecessary drain on the servers. Transcluded signatures require extra processing--whenever you change your signature source, all talk pages you have posted on must be re-cached. (emphasis mine) ” As such regardless of whether its "protected" or not, you are still able to change the source exactly in the way described. I believe our software actually substs any templates so I assume you're not using the traditional ~~~~ - but if you don't intend on changing the source perhaps you'd consider doing so or perhaps subst'ing it? Just a thought :) Glen 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Again, I appreciate your efficiency in researching this matter, but that's quite simply addressed by the fact that I haven't changed my .sig in over a year, and should I ever find a need to (unlikely), I'll just create a new template and increment by one. What's more harmful to the project, IMHO, is HTML sprawl over talk pages, polluting our pristine pages during editing, and forcing me to dig through tags to find text ;> I took this up with the guy who did the code to hypothetically prevent unsubst'ed .sig's once, and apart from general annoyance at me, he pointed out no significant downsides to my particular implementation. I've always taken "forbidden" to be a typo in most instances, usually accidentally inserted in the stead of "discouraged", and felt it would be rude to complain. Still, you are quite correct in noting that an unprotected, routinely-changed .sig would be unjustified and inappropriate. ... I like you! Let's be pals :) —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-02-27 11:46Z Verifying It says in the trivia section that you hacked NBC in 12 minutes. Was it a thorough, superuser breach? Did it even happen? What exploit (if it's already fixed) was it? Just consulting the primary source. {Slash-|-Talk} 07:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC) WP:NOR, WP:SELF —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-03-02 09:14Z I reply here. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-03-05 01:08Z Sexuality I know this is completely private but you are listed on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/K-O. Could you please confirm this? I am writting similar list in polish wikipedia. Greetings!--Plywak 18:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC) I reply here —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-03-05 01:08Z He is, indeed, gay. barnstar the adrian giveth, and the adrian taketh away. Ytcracker 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Welcome to VandalProof! Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Adrian! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Ale_Jrbtalk 17:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Unspecified source for Image:Cunanan.jpg Thanks for uploading Image:Cunanan.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged. As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Goodness Goodness, now there's a name I haven't seen in years. The last time I did was kind of a mess, as I recall. Toss me an email if you like. Philippe 00:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Wow Big fan. Warrush 19:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Hey, thanks :) —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-06-22 02:57Z Well that just made my day! I have a question. Were you ever into the open-source software movement? It doesn't say anything on your wiki article. Warrush 13:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Jessie Davis hey thanks for letting me know. i didnt realize I added my statement twice. Should I delete it, or leave it there? BigCoop 01:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Ok Thanks! I think I had them Delete my other account. My other account was Mcoop06. i think they removed it already. BigCoop 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Your opinion please Can you comment on the recent incarnation of the Hacker's article? Please take a look at this post here. Thanks. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:Gardner-mug.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Gardner-mug.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Here's a weird one for you Hi, I was clearing out the CSD backlog and came across the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 7 listed as a an attack page. The only thing I could find was that you included {{t1|db-attack}} in your comment. Thowing "nowiki" tags around it seems to have cured the problem, but I'm not sure why it took over a year to show up. I check the speedy backlog almost every day and had not seen it there before. Anyway I thought you might like the heads up. Dsmdgold 03:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC) Hi Adrian How's life? I finally got around to registering here :D -jeff MuchoMaas 02:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Hey you Kinda like the comment above, i suppose, including the :D. Ilva (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC) : ) hey, like ur pic : P ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 17:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC) both of em. very nice :D ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 19:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Naming underage suspect Hello there. I have replied to your comment. Thanks for your insight. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC) I do remember! And I can't believe I forgot to sign my post. Anyway, I'll email you but I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea of my email address being forever indelled into the Wiki page history. Adrian Lamo, the man you hacked New York Times - is it even safe to email you? Haha. x~ZytheTalk to me! 21:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC) interrogatory Hello Mr. Lamo, I do apoligise for the listing of your article under our project scope. A quick review of the page history was unable to determine who had placed the marker there. I do thank you for bringing the issue and your article to my attention. Thank you for your service brother, and I'm not talking about your service to wikipedia ;) Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:Lamo-tss.jpg Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lamo-tss.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — neuro(talk) 19:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:Duty.gif Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Duty.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — neuro(talk) 19:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)