User talk:AdamJacobMuller

Don't use bots to edit

Don't use bots to erroneously revert pages, as you did with pod racing.

Hi, i'm fairly sure that i'm not a bot though I might be one and not know it AdamJacobMuller 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

President of the United States

The Presidential election has not occurred. Do not put false information into Wikipedia (i.e. Bush leaving office in 2005). Your political views are your own opinion.Jwinters 1412, 30 Oct 2004 (PDT)

But, it was SO worth it. AdamJacobMuller T@lk Sat Nov 13 04:30:19 GMT 2004

Tokyo

Hello AdamJacobMuller, I changed the population of Tokyo back to the number that remained in the text. Here's the difference: for Tokyo itself (Tokyo-to, the governmental district covered by the article), the population is 12 million; the figure of 33 million is for the Greater Tokyo Area, which includes not only Tokyo, but also Chiba Prefecture, Kanagawa Prefecture and Saitama Prefecture (and thus has a much larger population. Hope that clears up the discrepancy. Fg2 06:24, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, it's nice of you to try and intervene, but some people might think you were trying to be misleading by placing a {{protected}} notice on a page that isn't actually protected. I'm afraid actually protecting a page from editing is a feature limited to administrators. Anyway, I went ahead and protected the page now. --Michael Snow 23:05, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I thought adding {{protected}} actually protected the page. Sorry for the mixup. --AdamJacobMuller T@lk Sat Oct 30 00:04:04 GMT 2004

The Randi Rhodes Show

You put that your changes were a 'rv changes by Mkrupnic'. Not sure what that ment, can you let me know what i did wrong, i am still learning. It appears you only removed the changes by User:Sverdrup. Does this mean you reverted to my version? -Mkrupnic 20:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I actually only removed the changes by User:Sverdrup, keeping your version, saying 'rv Mkrupnic' was a gaffe on my part. AdamJacobMuller Talk Sun Oct 31 00:26:41 GMT 2004

Adam, can you add a note to Image:Randi.rhodes.jpg concerning its copyright status & terms of use? While I assume that it's covered by fair use, lack of the necessary information will likely lead to it being deleted down the road -- which has been happening to many images. Thanks. -- llywrch 18:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Pace University seal controversy

I have retrieved a Spring 2005 "registration confirmation" which, sure enough, features the "old" seal. It is one of those large blue envelopes you receive prior to each semester.

It is true that most universities has both a logo and a seal. But, I think the precedent is to use the seal, if it is available; for example, see Boston University. The BU website displays only the logo with the seal nowhere to be found, just like the Pace website. Yet, the seal is still used in the artcile. Not sure what the reasoning is, but I think it makes the article (and the university) look more professional. -Ld | talk 01:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

This message is regarding the article Google bomb. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Andjam 10:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

just for clarification, it actually was a mixup, google's personalized search meant that what I wrote was actually true, but it's obviously not right AdamJacobMuller 17:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Image for Future TV show template

Fair enough. Could you put in an image to replace it? Maybe a GFDL image of a TV with a GFDL image of a clock? ShutterBugTrekker 21:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

to be honest, my drawing skills have been the same for the past 19 years (i'm 21 now :P) and are mostly limited to the most basic of stick figures. So, while I probably could do that, you most certinaly would not like the result AdamJacobMuller 19:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Regarding you comment in template:user OS:GNU/Linux, I would like to remind you to please refrain from personal attacks. Furthermore, just because I like the name GNU/Linux, it does not mean I am an "RMS fanboy" (which is also a sexist remark, BTW). It could also mean that I think that "Linux" is ambiguous as it can refer to both the operating system and the kernel, and thus can be potentially confusing to users and make people think that FUD attacks against the kernel (such as that by SCO) are really against the whole operating system. Where (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Survivor: Panama

Thanks for the initiative. Semi-protection would help, but I don't think that it'll be approved because the page isn't being vandalized, only the external links are being messed with. However, the guy did violate the 3RR policy, so I reported him to the admins. They'll (hopefully) block him for 24 hours. Jtrost 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

You were born on 1894? Srdjan Vesic 23:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

egads, i have NO idea how you caught that one, it's actually 1984 :P thanks! AdamJacobMuller 00:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Michelle.Trachtenberg.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michelle.Trachtenberg.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|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 images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 09:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment

As a fellow Wikipedian environmentalist I would like to welcome you to help with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Alan Liefting (talk). 09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Survivor image

Please stop changing the image on the Survivor front page, the Exile Island logo that is used is an old screengrab from the reunion episode of Guatemala and looks out of place amogst the other clearer images. There is absolutely no order to the logos, it makes zero sense. Furthermore, the Palau logo is oddly shaped. If you don't like the image I put up then make your own, but until you're willing to do that, leave it how it is. HeyNow10029 07:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Survivor: Panama location

The reason I removed "Pearl Islands" is because I never recall anyone saying that it takes place within the Pearl Islands. The most specific location that we're given is Panama. Unless you can cite an official source that says they're in the Pearl Islands that should be removed. Jtrost 22:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on if you actually think that Survivor 12 isn't actually in the Pearl Islands in Panama. In any event, the fact that they are back in the same location has been well documented.

• Filmed in the Pearl Islands off the coast of Panama [1]
• Survivor: Panama — Exile Island heads for the third time to the Pearl Islands off Panama in Central America [2]
• Although it was titled Survivor: Pearl Islands, CBS' seventh Survivor edition, broadcast in Fall 2003, was filmed on the same islands, as was the subsequent spring's Survivor: All-Stars eighth edition of the long-running reality series. [3]
• Survivor to Return To The Pearl Islands, Panama for Twelfth Edition [4]
• For the third time in 12 seasons, Survivor is back in Panama's Pearl Islands [5]
• We are back in the same area that the Pearl Islands and the All-Star seasons were filmed [6]
• "Survivor" is back in Panama and the Pearl Islands. [7]

Should be sufficent AdamJacobMuller 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Amazing Race rules

Please do not edit a page while an {{inuse}} message is being displayed; doing so will cause the other person to wind up in an edit conflict. Royal Blue ^T/_C 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Survivor: Panama and Eddie's edit

I saw your note to User:EddieSegoura's talk page. I've deleted the revision that had the spoiler in the edit summary. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:04 UTC (2006-02-24)

Thanks NSLE, you scared me there for a moment when the page dissapered until I checked the talk page, :) there really should be a better way to fix edit histories, do you have to do that manually? AdamJacobMuller 02:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, have to delete the page and restore each version to the edit history. NSLE _(T+C) at 02:36 UTC (2006-02-24)

Reverted edit

Why reverted you my edit 08.35 24 February 2006, article Microsoft. One should be able to experiment without that all immediately must be reverted to it "ordinary" version. --Off! 08:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Wikipedia:Userbox_policy_poll#Oppose

Note that this proposal specifically supports "free expression [by users] on their userpage without censorship or other hindrance", and states that users "may, if they so desire, declare their point of view, and may arrange the space as they wish (including the use of any userboxes)." Claiming to oppose it because "userspace was never indended to conform to encyclopedic goals" seems to be a major misunderstanding. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates designed for use in userspace should only be permitted where they are of benefit to creating an encyclopaedia hence, you are proposing limiting userboxes to those that conform to encyclopedic goals. AdamJacobMuller 11:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Minor edits

Marking an edit as minor or not is a matter of personal opinion. I think that a revert is a minor edit because I'm restoring an article to an earlier state. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 00:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

It would be helpful for me to know which edit(s) you are referring to where I may have used the minor flag incorrectly.

Thanks --BullWikiWinkle 18:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Jackson.browne.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Jackson.browne.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|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 media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Hey, would you mind explaining why you reverted these edits that I made? I felt that information was crufty and unverifiable. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 01:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Sure, you reverted substantive edits such as the addition of the line to the table for next week, you also reverted an interesting bit from the trivia which is definitely noteable enough to be included. and you removed the information on next weeks episode which is in fact sourced (listed as being said by Probst). Would you mind explaining how any of this is fancruft or unverifiable?

1. The air date (which is the only info that was added), is definitely neither fancruft or unverifiable.
2. The "next time on survivor" bit could possibly be misconstrued as fancruft, but it's the only verifiable bit of information about the episode next week beyond the date/name so it's notable enough to include for the next week.
3. The bit about the voting history is (IMO) very interesting, and something even *I* didn't know. I did check that episode (off my DVDs) so what they say did happen, I can't say for a fact that that has never happened at any other point, but to my knowledge it has not occured at any other point.

AdamJacobMuller 02:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have brought up my concerns on the article's talk page. I think it's important that all authors are on the same page in regards to what we should add and delete from this article. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 04:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Amazing Race

Im not going to get into an edit war over one small link but since you already have CBS linked earlier in the sentense, it is not necessary to have it later on as a link and does not look right. Please explain this. I look forward to your ingughtful reasoning. Thank you. American Patriot 1776 05:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad your not going to "get into" an edit war over it, but, quite simply, there is no reason *not* to link to CBS in both places and it makes more sense to link to CBS in both places. What exactly makes it "not look right"? Also, please don't misrepresent the situation, the word is linked twice in the same paragraph, not twice in the same sentence. Also, please pay attention to your spelling, it makes your comments very hard to read. AdamJacobMuller 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the spelling. It's about 12:30ish in the morning where I am, I should get some sleep... Anywho... I guess it could go either way. You make the call. American Patriot 1776 05:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

it's ok, it's just particularly difficult particularly difficult for me to read things that are mis-spelled. I'm not particularly beholden to my position and after reading Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context you might actually be right AdamJacobMuller 20:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage was briefly delisted by a rogue admin

Template:User freedom

You have a userbox Template:User UN which links your userpage to United Nations Wikipedians. There is currently a movement to ban userboxes from Wikipedia which are shared and which create Lists of Wikipedians. Certain admins have taken it upon themselves to preemptively sabotage and/or delete such categories and template. Here is the incident report which reported damage to yours, in which hundreds of userpages were delinked from categories without the users' knowledge. They have been stopped, barely, and the damage reverted— for now.

There is a Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll, which if passed, will make required by policy the damage done to categories and templates such as User UN/United Nations Wikipedians. If you do not want this to happen, I urge you to vote Oppose. in the poll. Support is currently running at about 66%, and your vote could make the difference. It is said to require 75%-80% to be deemed reflective of consensus.

Thank you,

~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 00:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:User All Drugs

This template was deleted on 17 February 2006 by Drini. Please stop recreating it. Recreating deleted material accomplishes nothing, since such pages are immediate deletion candidates. I'm trying to help you here by substing the code on your user page, but your reaction is entirely unreasonable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 13:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, subst'ing the code onto my page is not helpful and I would like you to never touch my userpage again, and you know if you have absolutely any sense about you whatsoever that you are the one being unreasonable. I am warning you not to delete the page again. I will recreate it per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templates_concerning_beliefs_and_convictions the decision of which was to Keep. Simply because someone else violated policy does not mean that you should follow suit. I do not believe that a reasonable person could look at what you are doing and believe that I am the one that is being unreasnonable and that you are the one who is not. Recreating this page accomplishes much, It is an affirmation by myself and the community that we will not stand for your censorship. We do not agree with your unilateral deletion of pages that are a benefit to the personal freedom and expression of the community. We believe that you are acting in an irresponsible and childish manner. We do not intend to allow your rampage against personal freedom and expression to go unimpeded. AdamJacobMuller 13:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if MarkSweep continues to vandalize templates. —Guanaco 23:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Impeach Bush

Don't butt in like that with reverts 70.84.56.172 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Not sure what you mean by "butt in" however your edits constitute Vandalisim and I have reverted them and reported you to an admin for blocking AdamJacobMuller 19:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach GWB

User:70.84.56.172 is known to be a sock puppet of someone I have informally called "the anon texan" who uses lots of accounts on Wikipedia. A few of his accounts are listed here User:Stbalbach/anontexan with further tracking information. -- Stbalbach 19:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sure you're a good chap and all, but you're wildly over 3RR on this article and its not at all obvious to the casual observer that you're reverting vandalism. William M. Connolley 20:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm sure you will take a closer look at it and realize that I was combatting a user who is using multiple sock puppets, etc to violate policy,I was working on IRC with admins (in CVU) to get appropriate bans in place. Thanks for sprotect'ing the page. AdamJacobMuller 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, using extra-wiki lines of communcation so as to hide your illicit plans and activities eh?... 70.85.195.225 21:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Nobel Prize in Economics Winners

Why did you add this category to Ronald Coase? It's a redirect. I don't know what's going on with this category, but people keep changing it without discussion. Someone needs to start a discussion somewhere, preferably at WP:CFD. If you're not involved with this and have no idea what I'm talking about, then don't worry about it. Chick Bowen 16:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I just looked at the anon users vandalisim (the edit summary gave it away, there is no way that adding a category about winning a nobel prize to an article about a nobel prize winner is POV) and reverted that (you beat me to it actually), I didn't see any good reason not to have both categories in there (seeing as the article says that he won both prizes) but if the Nobel one is no longer being used... Basically, I thought I was reverting simple vandalisim where something more complex was going on :) AdamJacobMuller 16:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, I should have figured it was something like that--sorry to have bothered you. Chick Bowen 17:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

it's not a bother :) Communication is always a good thing and I would rather you have bothered me than lingering doubts about my intentions hang around. AdamJacobMuller 18:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Justin Longmuir

Noticed the stub you incorrectly added to Justin Longmuir - he is certainly not a rugby player, he is an Australian rules footballer! A quick search on Google would have confirmed that. Anyway mate I hope you familiarise yourself with Aussie rules by watching the games on AFL Video - educate yourself man ;) :) cheers, Rogerthat ^Talk 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, football is definitely not an area i'm that familiar with AdamJacobMuller 01:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop it.

Do not revert my edit to the S.V. Shereshevskii article. I got rid of an irrelevant item. Now leave it alone, dunce.

How does a citation about a book related to the subject of the article count as irrelevant? AdamJacobMuller 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. A citation. What is cited? Nothing. Nothing in that article is cited. The book is listed at the end, and the reader is left to wonder what information is from Luria's book, and what information from the other (which is just one of at least dozens of crappy books on memory). Considering Luria did the original research, his book (even if it is in Russian) is the only one that should be cited. Maybe self-education isn't for you. 70.49.242.106 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)