User talk:Kungfuadam/Archive 3

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

I will respond to messages here so please temporarily put my talk page on your watch list. This will prevent discombobulation of messages.

---

Archives

4th Quarter 2005 Archive 1st Quarter 2006 Archive

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)

• For example, this edit by User:Timbarajas[2] was not corrected by User:CambridgeBayWeather(Who's edit summary states: "CambridgeBayWeather m (Reverted edits by User:24.172.195.239 (talk) to last version by User:Timbarajas").[3] CambridgeBayWeather actually reverted to a vandalized version, so I had to go back and manually correct it[4]. The page should be locked, and anyone wishing to contribute should come here to [the] talk page [Talk:Katie Holmes] and suggest changes. --67.77.201.22 16:26, 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! --Siva1979^{Talk 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:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) 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. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. 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 (UTC)

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!
	...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.