User talk:Mike92591

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Sango123 00:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

x86-64 vs. AMD64[edit]

As far as I'm aware, "x86-64" is obsolete nomenclature; AMD renamed it "AMD64" in 2003 [1]. Intel have never referred to their EM64T architecture as "x86-64", AFAIK. I'm curious as to why you feel the need to substitute "x86-64" everywhere you see "AMD64"? Letdorf 23:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Because the name for article is x86-64 now. Mike92591 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what piped links are for (and besides, "AMD64" redirects to the same article). Letdorf 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC).

I know, I just figured that sense the name "x86-64" is preferred over "AMD64" in the title I thought that it would be preferred in any other case where the brand is not important.

Firefox TOC[edit]

Hi. Just wondering - did you know the link you added to the Firefox TOC is dead. Do you intend to create this page, else it might be worth removing until then, so that box is kept small. Widefox 18:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't know, I had started an article but I guess it was deleted so there isn't a point in keeping it.Mike92591 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich[edit]

Would you like to help out at WikiProject Munich? I think you can really help the project. Kingjeff 20:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty flattered that you think my German is good enough, sure I'll sign up.Mike92591 23:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on an article for WikiProject Munich. It was about time to get the ball rolling on this project. I'll try and get a few more translators. Kingjeff 00:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Munich Barons[edit]

All I did was put that into an online translator and that's basically what I got. So that's what I got. Kingjeff 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll just translate as much of the weird stuff as I can from scratch then.Mike92591 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

EHC Munich and Munich Barons[edit]

Here is an example that you might want to follow for the 2 hockey clubs. I know it's a football manual of style but it's something you can work with. Kingjeff 03:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do with it.Mike92591 03:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

How much has been completed of EHC Munich? Kingjeff 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

about 3/5 or so.Mike92591 01:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Want to give Unterhaching a try for translation? Kingjeff 02:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

sure Mike92591 02:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like I'm dishing out orders. Only do it if you really want to. Kingjeff 02:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'd honestly rather do this then the hockey ones.Mike92591 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FX2nonOS specific.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:FX2nonOS specific.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 11:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it, there's no reason in keeping it.Mike92591 17:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Munich District[edit]

I put it back up. Don't worry about if you want to d oit or not. Someone else ca ndo it. Kingjeff 20:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Lage-taufkirchen-lkr-m.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Lage-taufkirchen-lkr-m.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello, Mike. I am hoping that Linux can be improved to Featured Article status. I would be grateful for your contribution here. Thanks. Axl 12:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP Munich[edit]

WikiProject Munich has over 20 members now which should make for a good WikiProject. To help organize the project, please put down some ideas at the talk page. Kingjeff 02:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP Munich membership[edit]

I'm giving WP Munich members a choice of being active members, semi-active members or inactive members. Please sign up for the correct one. Kingjeff 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just started a KDE wikiproject[edit]

You seem to put in some effort to helping with KDE and especially Amarok articles. So would you be interested in joining the new KDE wikiproject?

Happysmileman 14:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Linux kernel history[edit]

Hi. Your last two edits to History of the Linux kernel gave me a good chuckle :-) I don't have enough time to counter all Thumperward's GNU-minimising efforts, and I've certainly ended up very frustrated at times while trying, but, do try to stay calm.

I would revert it but I don't know which version to revert to - can you pick which is the best starting point? For the Linux kernel history, I agree that describing the evironment that it was born into, and the situations that lead to it's launching, are certainly worth a paragraph or two. --Gronky 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for incivility[edit]

I've blocked you for two days due to repeated incivility towards another editor at Talk:History_of_the_Linux_kernel#Pre-history. You're welcome to come back and discuss the issue civilly after the block expires. You may ask for review of the block with {{unblock|your reason here}}.--chaser - t 23:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mike92591 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

The person I'm dealing with is mentally challenged so calling him stupid is very fitting

Decline reason:

Your block has now been extended to a week for this blatantly incivil unblock reason. — Metros 00:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Table merge[edit]

Hi. Please join the discussion on table merges at Talk:Comparison of Linux distributions#Table_merge. Thanks, Technobadger (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixing "History of Linux"[edit]

Hello Mike29591. I see you have put "Finish fixing History of Linux" on your "to do" list. Can you please take a moment to fix the following errors that slipped into the paragraph you seem to have added last October 18th, entitled "Competition from Microsoft":

  • Most members of the Linux Community took however left [incomprehensible] and stichelten [foreign word] the topic with jokes...
  • Among other things the magazine [which magazine?] did not publish LinuxUser, a completely seriously meant review of Windows XP under the points of criticism of a typical Linux distribution [unclear passage].
  • In the context of the Virtualisierung [foreign word] was agreed upon to improve the exchange from Office documents and to simplify the Virtualisierung [foreign word] of the Enterprise solutions in each case under the competition product as well as the integration of Linux and Windows machines into a common directory structure to simplify [incomprehensible sentence].
  • The patent protection planned at the same time that customers of an offerer for the use its software of in each case different the offerer may not be sued because of infringement of a patent. This patent protection was expanded also since non-commercial free software developers. The straight last step harvested also criticism, since it included only non-commercial developers with. [This entire passage seems to have been produced by automatic translation software: the syntax is faulty and the sentences are incomprehensible.]

(Note that I've also posted this request on the article's talk page.) Thank you in advance, - Redeyed Treefrog (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Compressed air entry in Comparison of automotive fuel technologies[edit]

Could you add compressed air in this article (see Air car? Thanks,

Zippo (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church[edit]

There is a revote on the FA leave comments page of this article. You are invited to reexamine the article and either confirm or deny your previous vote by voting again. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of programming languages (basic instructions)[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Comparison of programming languages (basic instructions), without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Btx40 (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Done. For future reference, you can also tag pages in your userspace with {{Db-u1}} and an admin will delete it for you. Garion96 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Mike92591 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Short circuit operators in Pascal[edit]

Hi, you added a footnote to the Short-circuit evaluation article saying that, in Pascal, "and" and "or" are "Typically short-circuited". Are you saying that ISO Pascal doesn't say whether they are short-circuit or not and therefore different implementations do different things? Or that the standard is clear but the implementations are inconsistent? Thanks for clarifying this. --macrakis (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I found some info on Pascal's definition and implementations; please take a look at my additions. --macrakis (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I guess I was wrong about what's typically done. Mike92591 (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Processor names[edit]


With respect to processor names, I have made further comments on my talk page including a link to a proposal to handle redirects. I think you may be interested. Lightmouse (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Now you have called me a liar. Please explain what it is you do not understand. I believe that I have been clear with you. I did not insult your intelligence given that it feels like we are going in circles. I have been patient and I have kept trying to answer your questions. I am trying to make this work. But most of all you do not know me. Do not call me a liar. My comments towards BCG however inappropriate are based on experience dealing with him. I think it is pretty clear by now who has made legitimate contributions and who has been disruptive. At this point you are the one that has used foul language. You like him got emotional and dished out some libel when all the while I was the only one making an effort. For that I got labeled as having ownership issues and accusing everyone of being sockpuppets. No one has agreed with me at least not 100%. Those that disagree with with the exception of BCG have been in no way disruptive. Is there any reason you can't get help. I asked at the top of the case to get the advice and opinions of long established users. Get BrownHornet21, Xavexgoem, Apoc2400, TEB728, Karbinski, BaseballBugs, is there any reason why this has to be done by one person. Whatever you do please stay on track. Libro0 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you are insulted but, your intentions are clear enough. I may not know you but, you are either lying or very stupid. Although you're not nearly as obvious Baseball Card Guy about it, both of you seem more concerned about each other than the articles themselves. Not answering my simple questions and your impatience are bearable but, lying (especially for such a silly thing) just isn't reasonable. Honestly, I'm not willing to do this if neither of you care. The only reason I'm involved is because this case was being neglected but, after that lie I've lost much of my good will. Mike92591 (talk) 03:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Call me stupid or confused but I will not tolerate being called a liar. I asked you what you did not understand and yes I am definitely concerned about this guy. He will not allow me to add verifiable information. That is clear enough. Tell me exactly what you think I am lying about. Furthermore, do not pretend to know my intentions. My intent is to contribute and to do so in the manner prescribed by the encyclopedia and all I get is the BCG monkey on my back for five months. He has contributed no content. His entire edit history is him antagonizing me. He has been convicted of making socks. If I am impatient I have a right to be. I don't appreciate you resorting to calling a liar and saying that I am dodging questions. That is ridiculous. I have tried very hard to explain things to you and even cite things to help you better understand the situation and on top of that you have the audacity to say I don't care. Libro0 (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, this has been a frustrating experience. It just felt like a waste of time, but I've realized that it's not a waste of time no matter how you guys act. Perhaps we did just miscommunicate; I should have given you the benefit of the doubt. I haven't acted in the way I should. I will wait for you to completely explain your view, and I will try harder to ask better questions. Mike92591 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am considering going to formal mediation. I have tried everything and it seems like BCG is immune to the rules. The RFC on him was ignored. His tactics are not rationality but defiance. He declared at one point "I never claimed to support you and will never support you. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)". I wanted to make this work in order to bring quality and standardization to the pages but it is clear he is not interested in the pages. He has targeted me for months on end. He is still removing information from the pages and I do not mean images. Check the last several edits on 1960s Topps and you will see that he keeps removing new set information that I have added. We can keep discussing format and content but none of it will actually come to fruition as long as he is allowed to continue targeting me. Libro0 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You might as well, we're aren't making much progress. Mike92591 (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I wanted to say that I liked your suggestion "to create an article that has a table containing every covered card type". I think that this would be right up BCG's alley since he prefers to tableize data. I am hoping some kind of 'master table' would be a good project for him to focus on that would hopefully take his focus off me. I think if he promises to do something productive like this it will help everyone. Libro0 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you suggested doing a list I was hoping to get your opinion on this. It is just started but the sets names could be linked to their repective years or descriptions. Libro0 (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually made the list to help give BCG something to work on but as soon as I put it up he nominated it for deletion and then went after another article. The cabal was closed also because he was banned along with a bunch of laundry. Most of the pages were then semi-protected. Anyway, I have been trying to get opinions and help from people so I put up a Peer review from which I applied some manual of style edits. Unfortunately the opinions are not flooding in. I di not get any response here. So, I hate to drop a ton of bricks on you if you are busy. In fairness to other ideas banned or not I wanted to offer a summary of my stance. I prefer the format seen in 40s/50s Bowman, 40s/50s Topps, and 1980-95 Topps while BCG's preference can be seen in 60s/70s OPC and 1970-79 Topps. Any input you may have is appreciated. Libro0 (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Bit confused by your vote on the poll - according to your vote, you're not opposed to a trial because you'd want it used in place of semi-protect which is a proposed trial at WP:FLR/P, but by opposing the proposal, you are opposing our only means of running the trial (the proposal is to install the extension software, not to start flagging any pages). Can you help me out here? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't notice that link. I'll change it. Mike92591 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: text field focus[edit]

I mean that you can't easily enter literal tabs (without copy-pasting) in most browser text fields since pressing <tab> does not enter a tab character but instead causes UI focus to jump to the next form field. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that seems like a good reason. Mike92591 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is fixed now, but just to chime in with Cybercobra. Putting tabs in WP articles is a bad idea, and very awkward. I'd argue the same thing about Python code in general, but that's a different issue (however, I'm pretty confident the standard library has entirely eschewed tabs, so that might be a good hint about the "official" stylistic preference). LotLE×talk 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2010 edition of the WikiProject Munich newsletter[edit]

This newsletter was delivered by Kingjeff to all members of WikiProject Munich. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, Kingjeff ~~~~~

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, QUAD (compressor), has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "QUAD (compressor)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 22:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)